paradox of financial cryptography, and, more specifically, digital bearer settlement, is not that it gives you privacy and freedom (anarchy? :-))

Anarchy != privacy In fact to many people privacy is a very statist construct, as they clamor for more privacy regulations by government. The contradiction is government has a vested interest in preventing privacy from itself, and generally makes loud but ineffectual noise in creating privacy from others. There are many anarchic elements financial cryptography, such as: * That you can achieve greater privacy through cryptographic means instead of government means by limiting the information transfer via zero knowledge, blinding, cryptographic pseudonymity, etc. * That you can exchange money in ways that are secured cryptographically and settled instantly that do not rely on the government as observer/auditor/enforcer[/taxer]. * You can create private currencies that do not rely on government goodwill and stability to retain their value. * That you can enforce contracts via electronic mediation and reputation punishment in a way that does not rely on biometric ID and government mediation/enforcement. Therefore traditionally archical processes become anarchical (without state [involvement]). It is the *process*, not the result that is anarchic, and it is the process, not the result, that is cheaper. Cryptography (cpu-cycles) is cheaper than government, with a falling cost versus a rising one. Will all these free anarchical processes eventually result in an anarchic state? Maybe. But the economics of the processes is the prime mover, the politics of the result is a consequence. Matt