weak cryptoanarchy
Some non-cypherpunks seem afraid of Tim May's cryptoanarchy, which, to quote Dr. Denning's recent paper, "suggest the impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as we know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by virtual communities of individuals doing as they wish without interference." Perhaps these people are worrying needlessly. I don't think cryptoanarchy (in this strong form) is a likely scenario for the future. Even if strong cryptography and anonymous transaction systems are used by everyone, governments can continue to control people's physical actions and properties. The physical world will continue to exist, even if it becomes relatively less important. I think a better prediction for the implications of strong crypto is what I would call "weak cryptoanarchy." That is, cryptography will allow virtual communities the option to exist without the possibility of inteference by force. Certainly some virtual communities, such as moderated discussion groups, will opt to have formal or informal governments. The key is that people will have the choice of participating in communities where physical violence will be absolutely powerless. Stated in this form, cryptoanarchy is hardly controversial. Plus, this weak form of cryptoanarchy has a much better chance of being realized, because it does not require the collapse of existing governments, only the creation of new communities without governments.
I don't think anarchy is the right word anyway. Anarchy is such a clumsy word, with so many misuses. It's supposed to mean lack of rule, but I don't think most people (even Tim) want to throw away all the rules; they just prefer consensus, balance of power, and self-regulation. Maybe autoarchy or symarchy. I find the distiction between government and non-government power centers fallacious. All kinds of associations make rules, which are normally followed, sometimes punished. The only formal distinction I can think of is that government bodies are supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. This distinction is blurring again, and not (just) by the increase of random violence, which normal folks are afraid of. People are becoming more civilized, and no longer believe that many of the violent things that governments used to do habitually are legitimate anymore. Nobody does ritual sacrifice to the ruler-god-king; few would now endorse locking the King's estranged wife in a tower, or killing her; fewer and fewer believe that war is glorious. On the other half of the walnut, non-government power centers now have powers formerly reserved only to governments. Private security guards assume some of the role of the police, and corporate espionage and counter-espionage is getting more and more interesting. "Superstars" in all fields have interesting powers over other people. We're not seeing a net decrease in the forces impinging on the individual, but rather a broader distribution, which might even be an increase. Let's call those half-developed ideas my $0.01. -rich
participants (2)
-
nobody＠REPLAY.COM -
Rich Graves