From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:43:13 +0800
To: "Cypherpunks (E-mail)" <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
Message-ID: <5F152E6E8E6FD21195DF00104B2425AD02B253@yarrowbay.chaffeyhomes.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> > > Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'?
> > 
> > Imposed by a gun.
> 
> Don't try to change the subject.

I'm not, taxes are a political transaction, I must pay them whether or not I
demand the service or disservice I receive for them -- taxes are not bound
by supply and demand.

> It's one of the defining characteristics that allow a 
> government to be a economic factor in the economic system

It is the defining excuse for the FEDERAL government to interfere with the
economic system.

> > > Can you say 'mint money'? Can you say 'federal reserve'?
> > 
> > Can you say government fiat?
> 
> Can you say fucked up non-working economy if there isn't some
> standardization of monetary systems? I can see it now if 
> folks like you get your way.

Try studying the free banking era of the Mid 1800's, or the international
exchange markets.

> When I go to Louisiana I'll need a whole new 
> currency that I can't trade my Texas money for.

Why can't you trade your Texas money? Who is to prevent you? Who is to
prevent other from meeting the exchange demand? Who it so prevent people
from accepting it in trade? Clearly with the digitization of money, multiple
currencies are not a problem.

> > > Can you say 'FDIC'?
> > 
> > Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun?
> 
> Don't change the subject (again).

I'm not, the gun is the defining characteristic that makes it political and
not economic.

> > The Soviet Union is a prime recent example.
> 
> How?

Self-destructed command economy that created prices by fiat instead of
obeying market economics.

> > British Mercantilism.
>
> How?

Self-destructed empire (starting with our war of independence) by creating
artificial trade barriers between the colonies to reap artificial profits at
the colonies expense (which was really at the heart of the revolution, not
taxation nor representation).

> Economics *is* human behaviour

Let's expand the definition to the point it has no meaning. No thank you.
Economics is production and trade; human behavior affects trade, it is not
economics.

> If you are trying to extend economics to the
> extent of trying to predict the micro-economic actions of 
> individuals then you don't understand macro or micro 
> economics very well.

You can predict the actions of groups of individuals if you understand the
nature of individuals. Predicting an individual is left to the soothsayers.

> No, the fundamental law of economics is 
> greed/desire/want/etc.

Okay, you take your laws of greed/want/desire and figure out how to sustain
life.

> Self-defence and self-sufficiency. The first requires brute 
> force and the second requires some mechanism of trade.

No, self-sufficiency by its definition means you are...well...sufficient by
yourself. If you require trade, you are no longer self-sufficient.

> symbol is money.

Money either has intrinsic value, or it is a symbol and debt against
something held of value, or it is a debt on the future acquisition of value
produced by someone else -- i.e. future productivity.

> First, the money supply was created by a popular vote, not a 
> government fiat

Oh, please do tell when/where this popular vote took place.

We've moved from intrinsic value currency to a currency representing hard
value (gold) to something that represents nothing more than faith of
government, and whose supply is controlled by fiat of a *private*
institution -- the Federal Reserve Board.

> > discussion? Privacy (as opposed to secrecy) is about discretionary
> > disclosure of information.

Discretion by you of the disclosure by you of information about you. Make
sense?

The other type of privacy, somehow preventing other people from disclosing
information about you by means other than mutual agreement is privacy of the
statist type.

> > There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit.
> 
> The government could tap my phone and there would be 
> no economic impact.

No cost, eh? I suggest you take a look at the congressional allocations for
FBI wiretapping capabilities.

> No, regulation does not automaticaly imply force.

Correct -- in fact the only regulations by private individuals/entities that
*do* have force behind them is that of the custodian/dependent relationship,
and they are limited. But find a government regulation that does not have
the confiscation of your property (by force) and/or incarceration of your
person (by force) as the absolute finality to non-compliance. They are few.

> Yeah, so. I don't believe this is relevant since we all agree 
> on this.

Oh, I forgot if you agree it irrelevant because you are simply being
entirely combative.

> I got news for you dude, I catch you in my truck after dark 
> or running down the street with my property I'm perfectly 
> within my rights to initiate force.

But you are not the initiator, you are reacting to my initiation of a force
(or derivative), in this case trespass and theft.

> You mean in an insiteful manner. You aren't talking 
> about reacting to something you're veiled comment is 

No, force in reaction to force. That is plainly simple.

> > You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it
> > reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th).

Brain fart, the 2nd. The right to bears arms has historically implied the
right to bear arms in defense against a despot.

	Matt