From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 06:46:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811052212.QAA14923@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:43:40 -0500
> From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone
>  (fwd)

> 	Anarchy is usually defined as the absense of government. What
> exactly makes up a "government", what are it's defining characteristics?

Well let's see....

control over some geographic area

arbitration of conflict

tithe from the inhabitants of that area

regulation of economic systems by controlling the medium of trade (ie money)

> 	Simply a device for reallocating wealth?--Insufficient, there are
> lots of mechanisms for that.

No, government control economies that's not the same thing as having
re-allocation of wealth as a goal. That's more a responsbility of a business
than a government. Governments, at least in principle, are concerned with
stable economies and the continued existance of same. Who exactly, if
anyone, is holder of that wealth is in principle irrelevant to the
definition of political systems as a general expression of human psychology.

Though it is clear the devil is in the details.

> 	A body that lays down standards and rules of conduct?--Sounds like
> a church or industry consortium to me.

It sounds like an expression of the social aspects of human psychology.
Whether it's a church, industry consortium, local LEA, local fire dept.,
etc.

> 	A heirarchical (sp?) structure that uses fear, propaganda and force
> to reallocate wealth, enforce standards and rules of conduct, and other
> things at whim (for varying values of "whim", from the "whim" of a
> dictator, to the "whim" of the "body politic").

Who cares whether it's heirarchical or flat (as in an anarchy or
free-market). The point is that abuse takes place.

It is no more ethical to bash somebodies brains in under an anarchy than it
is in a democracy or a communicsm.

> 	Now, THAT is a government. Yes, some of what it enforces is
> probably a good idea (i.e. everyone driving on the same side of the road,
> &etc) some if it is kinda silly (don't smoke dope, or you're going to jail
> (Here, have a beer)), and some of it is downright stupid and shortsighted
> (encryption policy, not drinking beer out of a bucket on the sidewalk).

Sounds like an expression of the range of human beliefs. Whether something
is right, wrong, stupid, etc. is a function of individual statements of
importance and ranking of consequences.

> 	Anarchy is not having to be effected by that, being "free" to
> follow what one thinks is right.

Which unfortunately includes the neighbor being able to take your property
by force since he believes it's right.

> How one gets to that state is not really
> relevent.

Tell that to the mother of the kid who got killed last night because he had
something somebody else wanted. Also explain to here how under an anarchy
there isn't any recourse for her other than to try to find that person
herself and kill them....

Yep, that is a very efficient and ethical system you wanna build.

 My statement above simply lays out the position having Privacy
> (for large enough values of privacy to be meaningful) and Freedom (for
> large enough values of Freedom to be meaningful) one is effectively in an
> anarchistic state. That is what "close enough to be meaningful" meant.

Freedom is the right to do what you want *WITHOUT* impinging or otherwise
limiting others right to express their desires and wants.

Anarchy clearly won't do that.

> 	Privacy is (at least it's my understanding) the ability to hide or
> mask   information in such a way that only people you wish to have access
> to it do.

If privacy exists you don't have to hide things because nobodies looking in
the first place.

You only need to hide things if you're reasonably certain somebody else
wants it.

> 	There are varying degrees of Privacy, from "Well, at least they

Yep, like there are varying degrees of pregnancy. Either somebody is looking
or they aren't.

> don't analyize what's in my feeces, even if they do watch me take it" to
> being able to completely hide any information at all from anyone.

No, that is varying degrees of *respect* for privacy. Not the same animal at
all.

> 	Freedom is the ability to make choices, and exercise those choices.

Without impinging on others freedom.

It's worth noting that anarchist don't add that last one in there because it
blows their whole little house of cards completely away.

> 	Just like privacy, there are varying degrees of freedom, from the
> convict who can chose wheter he/she wants to eat that slop or go hungry, to
> the president of the US who can (apparently) bomb people with impunity, lie
> under oath & etc.

No, there are varying degrees of respect for freedom.

> 	When the amount of freedom and privacy is high enough, it is
> indistinguishable from anarchy.

Sure it is, because under anarchy there is no protection that one persons
expression won't interfere with anothers expression without resorting to
violence.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------