"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
Of course, he talks about "law as the force which allocates property rights", and most cypherpunks would dispute that, knowing of better, cryptographic ways of allocating control of property.
I definitely intend to read more on Hayek, and am not disagreeing with the above, but I'm having a hard time imagining how this would work with real property. I'm living in my house, all paid for, you can't kick me out and move in since the law says it's my house. Take away the state, and I (and perhaps my family and friends, neighbors, tribe, whatever) simply kill you when you try to move in, which is clearly not workable in many situations, i.e., you have more men with guns. I can easily understand how crypto can protect intellectual property, ecash, etc. but not real estate, cars, whatever, without ultimately a state or some sort of arbitrating body (men with guns) to enforce title. Crypto -- digisigs -- to prove title, of course, but title has never meant much to men with guns who wanted it. And don't take this to mean I'm arguing against abolition of the state, I'm just looking for an explanation on how this would work.