Oops. Looks like you weren't watching your >'s :-). You're actually responding to Unicorn, not me. *He* was responding to something Todd Boyle said (well, probably trolled, given his past behavior :-)) on the DBS list.
I don't altogether enjoy living in the world I've created. My intent in posting my ideas is so that they'll either be verified, or be neutralized or corrected by enzymes on your excellent list! <G> But I'm still stuck on these points: * Thieves exist in large numbers, throughout the world including my own immediate area. Many more potential thieves in line, behind them. * If thieves could hide the money they stole, there would be substantial increase in frequency and severity of theft; mostly fraud, employee embezzlement, and white collar theft but also blatant scams and grift that is impractical today. We're already seeing annual increases in embezzlement in the Seattle area from 10-50% over the last 10 years, getting similar to the rates around Los Angeles, for example. * Reducing trackability of money increases the severity and frequency of collusive crimes. Large-scale political corruption, kickbacks and monopolies in the commercial sector, and a whole range of outright criminal blackmail become harder to prosecute. With DBS you wouldn't be able to prove a damned thing. * The biggest single financial problem I have is mandatory levies (tax, utilities, monopolies) by the corrupt government. Your DBS will make this much worse by making it even easier to channel cash to politicians. * Fraud, embezzlement and corruption are in riotous equilibrium. DBS reduces pressure on laundering, requiring other measures that hit my civil liberties somewhere else (physical IDs, cops, etc.) * Untraceable money *obviously* reduces tax collections. What the IRS fails to collect from tax dodgers, eventually, I must pay more. You seem to have a subconscious belief that DBS will shrink the government sector. This is a false assumption. The government long ago achieved the power to tax *as much as it wants*. There is no natural immunity in our culture or legal system. The public sector has stabilized at 25% or 35% of the GNP, which is apparently the maximum the animal can tolerate without falling over dead (people striking, quitting work, and business moving overseas.) Gimmicks like DBS will certainly not reduce the public sector in our lifetimes. It will require an evolution in individual awareness and behavior. In mean time, managing the out-of-control government sector is your civic duty, to your less intelligent wives, pensioners, and children and neighbors. The preferred way to manage the governmt is the democratic process, and public discourse and debate such as this list. Breaking ranks and disobeying the law breeds further breakdown in obedience of the whole legal framework. There are lots of dumber and more dangerous elements in the population. The system is already *quite* unfair to them. When the superintelligent can steal through high-tech money schemes, and the wealthy classes violate their own legal framework, why shouldn't the thief just come and steal our cars, or fuck your daughter? Frankly, we need laws, a lot more than we need DBS. Now, what is your solution to prevent the use of DBS in large-scale financial fraud, political payoffs, etc.? Or is that outside your scope, and such problems should be solved by wiretaps, surveillance or what? Don't tell me these problems are minor or will just disappear! Do you know how much money is already wasted on audits and law enforcement in this country? Auditing is already hideously expensive, and the only solid facts in the entire audit process are the goddamn bank statements. You need a coherent argument on this problem. You need measures within the DBS technology itself, to address the need. Opponents of DBS will raise all these demagogic arguments. You'll be hooted off the podium. I fear you'll end up damaging the reputation of legitimate forms of peer-to-peer electronic payments, which are badly needed in the economy. Todd Boyle CPA Kirkland WA tboyle@rosehill.net