From: IN%"unicorn@schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 27-APR-1996 23:39:58.42

Now, how are you going to impose taxes on heads if it becomes impossible to track down a person? You have to find them to tax them. With secure, anonymous communications, people can exist without giving away their location, business interests, property holdings, etc...etc... Travel

However, one can ask at various points for identification, possibly cryptographically protected. If that ID hasn't had its head tax paid recently, then you sieze the person. (See below for why I'd call this a probably growing tendency). The ID in question can be biometric, and thus can't be passed (easily) from one person to another once the head tax has been paid on it. Now, what sorts of points one can ask for identification is one place where it gets interesting. If you are doing property taxes, then you can require that the "registered owner" present the cash. But that doesn't prevent someone from hiring someone else to be the registered owner. However, except for schemes such as Assasination Politics et al, enforcing that supposed owner from becoming the de facto as well as de jure owner can be difficult. (In other words, if he says you don't own the property, and the state backs him up because he's paid his head tax and you haven't, then you've got a problem.) Other such interactions are whenever you get caught doing something physical, such as through various police stings. If you don't have your head tax paid on some ID with biometric links to you, then you get put in jail longer.

The only option for government becomes forcible seizure of land and or persons to enforce taxation. Note that even today property in the United States owned by tax evaders is difficult to seize if one cannot prove tax evasion. (Taxation is merely one example of regulations that become difficult to enforce with proper cryptography in place by the way).

As the state becomes more and more desperate, it seems likely that seizures (or even destruction) of property and persons on such grounds will become more and more frequent and easy. Unconstitutional in most cases? Probably... but they may stop caring.

This being so I think it obvious that a manner of market economy among political systems will emerge. Some nation states will participate in what liberal-economists call a "race to the bottom" where they will continue to reduce regulations and so forth to attract businesses and thus income. Those on the far left somehow count this a _bad_ thing, citing typically environmental issues. It never ceases to amaze me that they don't get the message when 20% of the corporate population departs and they still don't realize that just raising taxes won't solve the problem.

Agreed. I just don't think the "bottom" is zero. In most areas, some government is likely to remain. (Indeed, for my purpose of maximizing individual choices (with the most important of such choices being those known as civil liberties), I currently believe that this is for the best.) -Allen