From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 10:01:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811060134.TAA15903@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Matthew James Gering <mgering@ecosystems.net>
> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone
> 	 (fwd)
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 13:52:14 -0800 

> > Yes, they are. Can you say 'taxes'?
> 
> Imposed by a gun.

Don't try to change the subject. Just because you don't find taxes
worthwhile doesn't mean others do as well. My bitch is about the amount and
the way it's legislated, not about paying them. I'd sure as hell rather pay
taxes for police, fire, ems, etc. than try to deal with that all myself. If
that were the case we wouldn't have a very high level of society since
nobody would have time to run businesses, write great books, make movies,
develop computers, etc. They'd be too damn busy sneaking up on the deer or
shooting/stealing their neighbors food/wife.

> > Can you say 'interstate commerce'?
> 
> What about it?

It's one of the defining characteristics that allow a government to be a
economic factor in the economic system, contrary to the original thesis.

> > 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. When I go to Louisiana I'll need a whole new currency that I can't
trade my Texas money for. Yep, that's an optimal way to run an economy.

> > Can you say 'FDIC'?
> 
> Can you say banking regulation at the point of a gun?

Don't change the subject (again).

> The Soviet Union is a prime recent example.

How?

> British Mercantilism.

How?

> Governments are ultimately bound to economics in the sense of human behavior
> and productivity -- the more they deny the nature of microeconomic actors,
> the quicker they self-destruct.

Economics *is* human behaviour, the science is the tools that we use to
describe what happens *after* the fact and if we're right we might even be
able to make some small usable predictions about what people in a gross
level will do in the future. 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.

> History shows that every dynasty well eventually self-destruct, to think
> ours won't is foolish.

Everything self desctructs at one point or another. Besides this issue is
irrelevant and immaterial to whether it is legitimate to consider a
government as an economic partner in a economic system, and whether that
model for government includes aspects normaly thought of as being a
commercial enterprise.

Again, stay on topic.

> My point is we don't have competitive governments per
> se

You are lost in a dream world, all government are competitive. Ask
Clinton, Hussein, Pinochet, Netanyahuh, etc. Why? Because people are
competitive, it's the way biology works.

>, you have a power void that is filled by new government that can be just
> as hostile to those microeconomic actors. All our government failures have
> yet to produce a sustainable government.

It never happens that way. The *only* time you have a power void is when
there are no governments in the first place. Once they are established other
governments and systems move in to take over the territory. It's quite
biological (which shouldn't surprise anyone) in its behaviour. Usualy a
government ceases because another government (whether internal or external
is irrelevant to the point at hand) moves in and destroys the base of the
original government. It might be by force but the fall of the CCCP clearly
indicates that we are seeing governments change their systems radicaly
without the violence, destruction, and death that historicaly such changes
have required. The fall of the CCCP is a watershed event because it
indicates that government systems can in fact change without these effects,
that is a very hopeful sign.

> > False distinction. Politics is about control and power
> 
> The fundamental laws of economics are supply and demand. As soon as you
> through force into the equation, it is no longer economic, it is political.

No, the fundamental law of economics is greed/desire/want/etc. Supply and
demand is how we describe the consequences of the flow of goods and
services.

Now exactly why you're bringing up economics when the issue in this case was
the base motivations of politics smacks of a strawman.

> > in human society that breaks down to force and money.
> 
> The essence of money has no political roots. The essence of money is human
> productivity and trade.

Oh baloney. There are two aspects of organized human society (ie politics).
Self-defence and self-sufficiency. The first requires brute force and the
second requires some mechanism of trade. For a society to get very large at
all *requires* a generalization of the barter system to a symbolic one, that
symbol is money.

> Money is tied to politics currently because it is regulated by force of
> government and the money *supply* is created by government fiat.

First, the money supply was created by a popular vote, not a government fiat
because there was no government to execute the fiat at the time.

Now as to money being tied to politics, see the paragraph above.

> > There you go again, confusing privacy with economics...
> 
> The discussion *was* *privacy*,

No, the discussion was the viability of modeling a government as a economic
entity within the economic system of a geographic region and what that
meant. There was also a side issue relating privacy and freedom to anarchy.

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

No, that is respect for privacy. Secrecy is the intentional act of hiding
information that one doesn't want others to discover, not the same horse at
all.

> To invade privacy is to remove or prevent that
> discretion.

No, to invade privacy is to disrespect it. Discretion is knowing when to do
it and not get caught.

> There is an economic cost of doing so, and an economic benefit.

Not necessarily. I can invade my childrens privacy and there is no economic
cost or benefit. My neighbor can rifle my mail and there is no cost one way
or the other (unless they steal my paycheck and that's a whole nother
issue). The government could tap my phone and there would be no economic
impact. Privacy does not require the issue of economics to brought into it
until we begin to discuss economic strategies. It is the issue of money that
brings privacy into the discussion and not the other way around.

> Corporations are bound by those economics, whereas government can mandate
> transparency by whim and gun.

No, it is clear that governments are bound by the will of their citizens,
their economy, geography, and their technology. They are not omnipotent.

> > True, but that isn't a function of regulation per se only the 
> > particular type of regulation that we have implimented.
> 
> It is the *nature* of regulation.

No it isn't. I regulate my dogs behavior and don't use force. Football games
are regulated by rules and they aren't imposed by force. The way my company
works is very regulated but there is no force involved.

No, regulation does not automaticaly imply force. Where force comes into
play is when the issue being regulated effects many individuals and some of
those individuals want the benefits but don't want to pay the costs. They
want a free ride at others expense.

> Government is a natural instrument of collective legalized force by any

This is a non-sequetar, governments define legality they are not defined by
it. There isn't some outside agency that defines what a government will do,
it's internal to the government and its participants.

> group that can influence it, and to think it can't and won't be influenced
> denies human nature in regards to power.

Yeah, so. I don't believe this is relevant since we all agree on this. It's
a function of human nature to try to get in a position of special favor so
at least some rules don't apply to you. It's a competitive advantage.

> Every government is despotic by
> nature, force corrupts. 

People are corruptable, governments are simply the framework they create to
express it.

> > No, they don't. It is perfectly legal for an individual to 
> > own a weapon.
> 
> The legal monopoly on the *initiation* of force.

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.

> And in fact you have very
> little freedom (eternally diminishing) to obtain potential force (arms) and
> use it in a *reactionary* manner.

You mean in an insiteful manner. You aren't talking about reacting to
something you're veiled comment is to allow yourself for example to buy a
weapon and kill me (for example) simply because you're pissed off about
something. It surprises you that I and others won't give you that freedom?

> You have absolutely *no* freedom to use it
> reactionary against government (which is in the face of the 4th).
 
			       ARTICLE IV. 
 
	The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall 
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place 
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 
 
That in fact does allow you to shoot somebody if they enter your home
illegaly, even a police officer. If you're being raped and shoot a cop it's
perfectly legal. If he's beating the shit out of you it's perfectly legal to
defend yourself, even to the point of killing the officer.
 
The problem is your not wanting to use it in immediate self-defence, you're
talking about going out and mowing people down simply because your pissed
off at what they stand for and you can't get your way. Your pissed off, like
all anarchist, that you can't take advantage of people with impunity.

A childish and petulant view.

I'm going to stop now since the rest of your email is more of the same.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------