This started out as a reply to me when I last had time to go through most of the posts here, So I'll try to answer it.
From: Hal
What does it mean to speak of a government in cyberspace? It is the government in physical space I fear. Its agents carry physical guns which shoot real bullets. ................................................................
Good point. What does it mean to speak of governance (or 'govenment') at all? Questions I would seek to have the answers to, in making decisions about government per se:
. Who or what is to be governed?
People, or more precisely entities that control private keys.
. What is inimical/destructive and to be regulated/prevented, or what is sacred which is to be upheld?
[I give two examples out of the infinitely large set of possibilities, intellectual property rights and privacy] It depends on the government. You could set up a government to monitor intellectual property rights. You give government a deposit of the maximum you can be fined under its laws. The companies that are also "citizens" of that government then give you large (if not infinite) discouts. In exchange you agree not to violate their intellectual property rights (A term I purposefully leave open to definition as different governments might make different choices). Another government might protect privacy. If my infinitely buggy software were working, corporations could examine the demographics of their customers or the participating portion of the internet as a whole (while paying the people involved a tiny fee of course). I've used random data perturbation techniques to set things up so that on searches that generate with one-dimensional results from multi-dimensional selection fields: A) It is impossible for the searcher to figure out the specific characteristics of any individual. B) The searchers results are not skewed in any way. But for multidimensional results, the technique I am using breaks down. Unless there is another way (There may well be), either A or B must be violated. It seems to me that the solution is a government to which the searchers and "data points :)" belong. B would be maintained intact but A would be violated. The "data points" would have their privacy protected by a system of fines imposed by the government. Both of these examples are similar in that they are coercive. If you want to conduct business with the governments citizens you have to obey all the laws. But no force is involved. The will of the government is effected entirely by economics.
. Who is to do all the work of preventing or upholding (how do they qualify for the job)?
They can be appointed, self appointed, or elected. The person who holds the job will atempt to enforce his laws as thoroughly as possible, thus ensuring the citizens the security that they want (and will pay for).
. What is to be done about non-conformists to the rules (without contradicting the rules?)
They are fined. If this doesn't work their communication priveliges are curtailed and if this doesn't work they are banished. As I have noted before, in an information economy this is an extreme punishment. Jason W. Solinsky