On 14 May 96 at 22:01, blanc wrote:
From: Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously]
It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say ultimate) cypherpunk model. ....................................................................
I think this is a much needed discussion - in particular as it comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh).
3 problems which immediately come to mind:
. What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine government agency)?
. What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards getting their expected remuneration for work done?
The nature of anonimity, IMO, precludes any legal mechanism since the anonymity structure was established precisely to avoid any legal consequences. Here, I might be tempted to differeciate between two cases: 1) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of the governmental system 2) the entity who wants to get out of the reach of everybody (to con others) The only problem is, how will you differentiate between 1) and 2) *before* a conflict arises? The involved party would then have to resort to use some sort of unofficial tribunal. It would create a set of parrallel law system, and as much of them as there would be groups doing business together. Again, depending on the context, AP might wery well be the only solution or be no workable solution at all. But here, I think that AP would be the single most important factor ruling the socio-economical behavior of individuals or entities in the world. It already works that way in many countries of the world, especially in south america. In many places, you don't screw around too much or you get killed. As a friend of mine who lived in the jungle told me "if a guy fools around with you wife, you just shut up and take it, but if a guy fools around with your girlfriend, you have the sorcerer mix you a beverage... One of my friend had one and he died within ten days..." He said: "This system might very well go against our common moral principles, but in theses places, you can leave anything on the public place for several days and when you come back, it'll still be there. In theses countries, when you give your word, it *is* binding. Most business deals are simply verbal and there is an astonishing low level of defaulting on them. Thoses who tend to default dishonestly tend very much to die quickly. In thoses countries, no con man ever survives."
. Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where suppliers do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has mentioned before about the need to pay for some things in tiny quantities - like quarters for a phone call, etc.)
Any physical currency can be made traceable (put a chemical or radioactive tracer or a zillion other tricks...) JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891