At 4:57 PM -0800 1/4/97, jim bell wrote:
I don't fault you for being "elitist." However, Rich Graves was right: I think that cryptoanarchy, while obviously eliminating taxation and income redistribution sounds cozy for economic elites, actually also eliminates the basis for those elites to be formed in the first place. To cite just one example that will hit close to home for you, without copyrights or patents (which are, obviously, monopolies enforced by governments) it would be far harder for companies such as Intel to maintain a near-monopoly on the DOS-compatible microprocessor market.
Of course. Please read my various sections in the Cyphernomicon on what will be the likely effect of liquid information markets on corporations--both Gibson and Chomsky have similar views, by the way. I have explicitly cited the role of crypto anarchy in undermining large corporations (changing the "nature of the firm"), and have said quite directly that crypto anarchy means as much for the nature of corporations as for government institutions. On the issue of my particular financial situation, no firm conclusions can be drawn. While Intel might not have existed as it did--always a tough thing to argue subjunctive realities--it is also the case that the very high tax rates (counting the various taxes, not just Federal) I paid for my working career could have allowed me to accumulate money in other ways. In any case, I don't make my arguments based upon "could have beens" like this. (Vis-a-vis my current expectations and my plans for securing my wealth...alternative pasts, such as "What if Intel had not had patent protection?." are meaningless. All that counts is the future from now on out. And in the time period I expect some semblance of crypto anarchy to evolve, which is a matter of decades, not months or years, there will be plenty of time for me to shift assets and move to a non-U.S. locale, if need be.)
And it has long been observed in libertarian discussion circles that far from hating regulation, most large (American; and others) corporations actually receive a net benefit from it as compared with smaller companies: The cost of complying with regulations doesn't increase linearly with the size of company, which means that those same regulations are a way of fighting competition if they are played right. Bring in crypto-anarchy and this effect is no longer operating.
Of course. I've said this very thing several times...perhaps you are remembering points I myself made. Again, don't attempt to refute my ideas by casting me as a Defender of Intel and Protector of State-Supported Monopolies. I'm not such a thing.
Despite all this, I still see nothing inconsistent in even an "elitist" pushing for crypto-anarchy: The current political system has become so dramatically inefficient and keeps so many people (through welfare, Socialist Insecurity, and government employment) well-fed through income redistribution, that I think finally even an "elitist" would be happy to chuck the whole system and adopt a crypto-anarchy-equalized system.
Indeed. And when you stop thinking I'm somehow arguing for State support of Intel and other corporate entities, my position will be even more obviously consistent. (As to my particular wealth from my investments, only part of it is directly attributable to having worked at Intel. Much of it is due to _investments_ in various companies over a 20-year period. I have confidence that had a less constrained market existed, I could have done about as well, or even better.) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."