-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net> wrote:
Anonymous scripsit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That being said let it be known that I consider the following as a "Cypherpunk victory."
1. Complete freedom of technology, particularly encryption technology, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ regulated only by market forces. This implies the lack of import/export restrictions, and a complete absence of projects designed to limit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ technology, or to standardize it for nefarious ends like Clipper. ^^^^^^^^^^
I think you overgeneralize. No limits on toxic waste incinerators, low-mileage automobiles, unsafe medical devices, genetically tampered food, or nuclear reactors? "Market forces" in such cases positively encourage dangerous technology (e.g. incinerators are superficially cheap) or are markedby their inability to distinguish the good from the crap (e.g. medical devices).
It is you who have overgeneralized. No limits on technology certainly does not mean allowing low tech and poor incinerators to continue operating. The fact that low mileage cars still drive is a result of poor markets than anything else (baring colletables). How would you argue that some low mileage cars are the result of a no limitations on technology policy?
A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard.
Unsafe medical devices? I would say this is a problem with testing technology, not a lack of limitation on technological advance.
If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time.
Genetically tampered food? Why is this dangerous? Have any evidence? Most of the livestock/crops you eat today have been altered in one way or another, be it selective breeding, low tech botanical splicing, or genetic/hormonal therapy. You see this as a regression?
In some cases, yes, I see problems in biotech. For example, hormones used in cattle in high doses are known to cause tumors in women in low doses. Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith. Without regulation on the technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef.
You never make the distinction between regulation designed to promote and regulation designed to deter technological advance.
Technological advance is a means to an end. Regulations should properly be about insuring the public welfare. While we might reasonably disagree about what that welfare is, clearly technological anarchy doesn't promote it.
Market forces are lathargic, sometimes they need a boost. I propose this boost be accomplished with motivators like tax breaks, market assisters and privatization.
Either the market works or it doesn't. You can't decry all government regulation and then call for handouts to businessmen.
When Germany wanted to promote environmentally sound packaging and manufacture, they started a program called Gruun Punkt (The Green Point) They allow manufactures to place the green point sticker on their products provided they meet XYZ specifications.
Actually, I think this is a great way to proceed. ======================================================================= Crim Tideson Privacy is its own justification. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBLpKieKvOblMnt4MdAQH72wP+NiE1e/wGy5t2XZla3gRXLRRGpCFeEX5J YtcKLqbym/pV9XRLBuEGIETnrsmJoOrWN+PDlzW02HXRmiad+Wbf1jp/QjPwXkQm 0ysSrrTIkZMsjIlY5ffxzwR8LzQZMhAMliFmFjhE8rAz/fLAqY1N+kT7NLiPyP54 TPOVSSyEhKU= =1dU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This recent debate about untested/dangerous/unapproved technology, such as medical equipment, vitamins, automobile features, is ideological. I'm not likely to convince the disbelievers here, nor are they likely--experience shows--to go read the recommended books which might answer these questions to their satisfaction. But arguing that the government needs to intervene in markets and limit free choice to "protect" customers and consumers is precisely how our present mess got started. And how crypto and communications is being afffected. (Imagine PGP being outlawed because of its "uncertified" nature, the bugs is clearly still contains, etc.) Anonymous wrote:
A lack of mileage standards, which are regulations on technology, can be expected to result in technology that doesn't meet the standard.
No, if customers want good mileage more than they want other features (like prices, performance, 4-wheel drive, etc.), then they'll pay more for them. Some do. Some drive little 60 mpg econoboxes, while I drive an 18 mpg (with a tailwind) Ford Explorer. The market in action. I could do some calculations on just how unimportant the "fuel economy" standards are, but I lack the energy and time to make these points here. Fuel economy standards are about the worst possible case that can be made for government interference.
If medical devices are sold without ANY limitation, e.g. the requirement that they be safe and effective, the result is unsafe equipment. Improved testing technology isn't useful if there's no requirement to use it. And "the market" is composed of people who have neither the expertise to test the equipment before they consent to its use, nor (in the case of someone's who's bleeding or in labor) the time.
Underwriters Laboratories, Good Housekeeping ("Seal of Appproval"), and Consumer Reports are better testers than any bureacrats in Washington, and they are private. Insurance companies have a strong interest in safe equipment, as do hospitals, doctors, and even patients. The specter of people killing themselves absent a government standard is false.
doses. Whether people would choose to eat horemone-treated meat is debatable; I had thought that the right to make the choice was taken by cypherpunks as an article of faith. Without regulation on the technology, even an innocuous labeling requirement, the right to choose is taken away because consumers can't detect the difference between hormone-treated beef and organic beef.
Again, faslse. If people are concerned, they can ask. They can patronize organic food stores, as they do in huge numbers here in the Northern California area. And so on. What often happens with government-imposed standards is that some lobbying group decides that "cheese is good for you" and so gets cheese installed as one of the government-mandated "basic food groups." (If you think I'm exaggerating, you didn't grow up in the 50s and 60s, when the "four basic food groups" had to be fed to children in school lunch programs. Political views have now shifted to the point where soy milk, bean sprouts, and sun-ripened tomatoes must now be included in all school lunch programs. :-}) Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to "opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not. Motorcycle helmet laws are a good example. Which I won't get started on here. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay
Tim May writes:
Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to "opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not.
Are you crazy? If you were allowed to opt out of government standards and eat what you want, you'd be driving up healthcare costs! That's unfair to your brothers and sisters! The government will stop you anyway by requiring everyone to have quarterly checkups and then have the medical records of people with unhealthy lifestyles sent to them. If you refuse, you won't get to be in the government healthcare system, which is only fair since you're driving up everyone else's costs like a sociopath. -Ray p.s. I hate to have to do this, but some people lack a sacasm detector, so: ;-) ;-) ;-) "Be very afraid, the Flavor Savor(tm) tomatoes are going to kill us all!"
Ray writes:
Tim May writes:
Government standards are a two-edged sword. Many of us would prefer to "opt out" of their idea of what's healthy and safe and what's not.
Are you crazy? If you were allowed to opt out of government standards and eat what you want, you'd be driving up healthcare costs! That's unfair to your brothers and sisters! The government will stop you anyway by requiring everyone to have quarterly checkups and then have the medical records of people with unhealthy lifestyles sent to them. If you refuse, you won't get to be in the government healthcare system, which is only fair since you're driving up everyone else's costs like a sociopath.
It would be helpful if we could define the word "government." Is a government any organization of people, or is it any organization wherein some people hold coercive power over others? In either case, how are corporations different from governments? If it is argued that corporations are different because, as an employee of a corporation, I am free to terminate my employment contract and to enter a contract with a different corporation, then it can also be argued that, as a citizen of the U.S., I am free to terminate my citizenship and assume citizenship in another country. In large measure, privatization really amounts to nothing more than removing programs from the incompetent, technocratic control of state bureaucracies and submitting them to the incompetent, totalitarian control of business. There is no question but that our government works very poorly by any standard; I just don't see the argument for privatization as being an argument between statism and anarchism (Bakunin would agree :}). It is, rather, merely an argument between two different, equally decrepit organizational precepts. -- Mark Chen chen@netcom.com 415/329-6913 finger for PGP public key D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen) writes:
If it is argued that corporations are different because, as an employee of a corporation, I am free to terminate my employment contract and to enter a contract with a different corporation, then it can also be argued that, as a citizen of the U.S., I am free to terminate my citizenship and assume citizenship in another country.
- From the frying pan into the fire? Why assume another? Why not drop your U.S. citizenship and be done with it? Can't be done you say? (*) Then this is a significant difference between terminating employment and terminating citizenship. Employees regularly terminate and go it alone forever after. (*) You may be right. Their statute may not provide for citizenship termination unless you first go to a place over which they don't claim jurisdiction. Good reason to never affirm that citizenship in the first place. John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by jkreznar@ininx.com | mutual consent, or not at all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLpNkysDhz44ugybJAQF9CQP/fdh3P4YYy4gvvm6kE8JkQmy4IkCQTxfd Jqg6m95fZokW28hmd8ogPa6wlcyr6qvWWrL9wb+7IMNf34BhV+8KJK/2tsgM496o PEruV31ucpbLNa97o81keZcp3F0gJeNjZiZO+1fl20R0ZvGmc3zArPsBebN24rJQ LRReyyIZ4Bs= =A9ZC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT) It would be helpful if we could define the word "government." Is a government any organization of people, or is it any organization wherein some people hold coercive power over others? It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate coercion. When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection, that's thuggery. When the British Government does the same thing, that's perfectly fine. <cough!> In either case, how are corporations different from governments? In the main, corporations persuade and governments force. -- -russ <nelson@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it? Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
I wasn't sure whether to respond to this message, or your other one, which admonished that this is off-topic. nelson@crynwr.dom writes:
From: chen@intuit.com (Mark Chen) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
It would be helpful if we could define the word "government." Is a government any organization of people, or is it any organization wherein some people hold coercive power over others?
It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate coercion. When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection, that's thuggery. When the British Government does the same thing, that's perfectly fine. <cough!>
And within the scope of their operations - among their employees - corporations have a monopoly on the means of economic coercion (forgive me if I omit your editorial use of the word "legitimate"). They have exclusive control over livelihoods.
In either case, how are corporations different from governments?
In the main, corporations persuade and governments force.
So maquiladora workers are "persuaded" to work twelve hours a day for fifteen cents an hour. Salvadoran workers are "persuaded" (at gunpoint) to contribute to the welfare of their latifundista benefactors for either a handful of beans or nothing at all. Similarly, I am "persuaded" to contribute my labor to the designs of my employer - truly, because if I don't like it, I can leave. Perhaps your will elaborate your assertion. -- Mark Chen chen@netcom.com 415/329-6913 finger for PGP public key D4 99 54 2A 98 B1 48 0C CF 95 A5 B0 6E E0 1E 1D
-----BEGIN OF PGP DECRYPTED TEXT----- Mark Chen writes:
I wasn't sure whether to respond to this message, or your other one, which admonished that this is off-topic.
nelson@crynwr.dom writes:
It's any organization that is allowed to have a monopoly on legitimate coercion. When the IRA collects taxes, and provides protection, that's thuggery. When the British Government does the same thing, that's perfectly fine. <cough!>
And within the scope of their operations - among their employees - corporations have a monopoly on the means of economic coercion (forgive me if I omit your editorial use of the word "legitimate"). They have exclusive control over livelihoods.
What is "economic coercion"? Within the scope of schools, teachers have a "monopoly" on the means of educational coercion. Within the scope of church, preachers have a "monopoly" on the means of religious coercion. Within the scope of the home, parents have a "monopoly" on the means of parental coercion. Are you seriously suggesting that any of these structures even compare to a government? Do you know what a monopoly is? You analogy doesn't hold water. It's like saying "within the scope of the people who patronize my store, I have a monopoly." Typical of socialists, they are unfamilar with economics and resort to semantic games. A monopoly is defined by (1) one seller, many buyers, and (2) restriction on entry. Unless a corporation has a monopoly on its market, it exists within a job market as one of many sellers. So unless your skills are very specialized and *only* that corporation supplies jobs needing that skill, in no sense does a corporation have exclusive control over livelihoods. However, specializing in a skill that not many people want to buy is as much your fault anyway. Finally, one doesn't have to work for a corporation anyway, it's a red herring. There are 4 million corporations in this country but 14 million small businesses. Trying to let governments off the hook because one can "move elsewhere" doesn't let them off the hook. For one thing, it ignores the fact that some governments *prevent* you from moving elsewhere (whereas, no corporation in a free market has the legal authority to stop you from quitting). Secondly, it ignores the transaction cost differences between switching jobs and switching countries. Third, barrier to entry is extraordinarily high -- try starting your own government vs starting your own corporation. Finally, there are 19 million businesses in this country to choose from, whereas there are only a handful of countries to move to. Governments have an oligopoly on countries.
In either case, how are corporations different from governments?
In the main, corporations persuade and governments force.
So maquiladora workers are "persuaded" to work twelve hours a day for fifteen cents an hour. Salvadoran workers are "persuaded" (at
I thought it was 49 cents an hour, however, no one ever accused a socialist knowing the facts. BTW, what's the cost of living in maquiladora. You know that comparing wages between different areas without purchasing power corrections is nonsense, don't you?
gunpoint) to contribute to the welfare of their latifundista benefactors for either a handful of beans or nothing at all.
If they're forced via guns, it isn't exactly a free market isn't it? Actually, it sounds like state socialism.
Similarly, I am "persuaded" to contribute my labor to the designs of my employer - truly, because if I don't like it, I can leave.
Then why don't you? What's stopping you from working for yourself? If you don't like the services your employer is providing you (workplace, tools, investment management, capital contributions, etc) and you don't have the ambition or skills to work for yourself, stop whining. If you have any computer skills at all, you can work for yourself without a large amount of capital. My sister got her CS and degree, did some consulting for a consulting firm, and after she aquired the skills, she quit and started doing her own consulting. She now works from home. In most small businesses, the workers are near partners with the management (and often earn equivalent wages)
Perhaps your will elaborate your assertion.
Simple: businesses are not governments. There is very little common ground between them. Governments operate by force alone, governments can prevent you from leaving, a business in a free market can't. You can found your own business, you can't found your own government. Businesses operate by selling products to people who voluntarily buy them. Governments operate by stealing your money at gunpoint.
participants (6)
-
chen＠intuit.com -
jkreznar＠ininx.com -
nelson＠crynwr.com -
nobody＠jpunix.com -
Ray Cromwell -
tcmay＠netcom.com