On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Neil Johnson wrote:
Two Things:
1. It sounds like to me that there is no room for human compassion in crypto-anarchy.
There is room for human compassion in any system. What is absent from crypto anarchy is a means to *compel* others to behave *as if* they were compassionate when in fact they are not.
2. I think that it's funny that ultra-conservatives who are for letting "competition" improve health care are setting themselves up for more abortions.
?? What has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that people who are the expectant parents of a child should be able to compel others to support the medical, educational, or other costs of having and rearing that child? Or that people who are the expectant parents of a child which they themselves are unable to raise should be compelled to carry to term?
How does crypto-anarchy/libertarian/anarchy propose to deal with the "tragedy of the commons" where by doing what is best for each persons own interests they end up screwing it up for everyone (Overgrazing land with to many cattle is the example I've been given).
First of all, it's not a proposal so much as it is a forecast. This is not something that we're fighting for, so much as something that is happening all around us and which we're looking ahead to the natural conclusion of. Morally, I don't defend it: I just think it's going to happen and we should be ready. Second, as far as I can see, there is no room for "commons" in the Keynesian sense in a fully crypto-enabled world. Everything will be owned. The best we can hope for is that ways to measure, charge, and pay for the benevolent effects of forests, grasslands, etc will be in place so that the free market can regulate these resources and keep them from overuse. Bear