IRS LEARNING . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT Reply to: ssandfort@attmail.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punksters, I wrote: My favorite *fun* solution would be to buy $80,000 in travellers cheques and then *burn* them. To which Phil Karn responded: Well, yes, I suppose you could then leave the country, find an **Amex** office and file a claim for the missing $80,000 of travelers checks, but wouldn't this generate precisely the kind of paper trail you're trying to avoid? . . . I do suspect that **the** government will eventually point to digital cash as justification for controlling all of cryptography. [**emphasis** added.] Folks, you have to stop thinking so parochially. The world is full of travelers check companies. Most of them protect their clients' privacy. Moreover, there is no *the government*. At any given time, their are 100-200 competing nation-states and other semi-autonomous political entities. Phil went on to say: Or they will refuse to back it [digital cash] up in court as legal tender, thus helping undermine it. I know there's this concept called "reputation" that's supposed to take the place of the government enforcing contracts, but I have a hard time understanding just how it will work for very large transactions between individuals (like buying a house or even a used car). Think a minute here. What legal tender laws back up the very travelers checks we have been discussing? What government says merchants must accept your Amex/Bank of American/Citibank/Thomas Cook/etc. travelers checks? As for "very large transactions," I again leave that as an exercise for the student. (Hint: How might an escrow be used?) I apologize to Phil for using him as an example of the provincial nature of the Cypherpunks list. At least, he is working with the concepts. The Cypherpunks list, though nominally international, is dominated by Americans. Unfortunately, we Yanks bring our own peculiar form of ethnocentrism to the list. (I also apologize to non-US list members for belaboring the obvious.) Punksters, we live in a transnational world. We work and play on the transnational Internet. Our computers and our cryptography transcend the evil empires. Transnationalize yourself; and swim like a fish through the sea of the nation-states. With apologies to Mao, S a n d y
Please send e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<<
Punksters, we live in a transnational world. We work and play on the transnational Internet. Our computers and our cryptography transcend the evil empires. Transnationalize yourself; and swim like a fish through the sea of the nation-states.
With apologies to Mao,
S a n d y
I have found myself writing things with nearly the same revolutionary bent to congresional e-mail addresses. Reading what Sandy has written, it finally struck me that the world we are envisioning and fighting to can very easily be cast as a communist/socialist movement. On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism. Lets have a discussion as to what political organization we ultimately want to bring about. If this has already been done, then please send me references. I hope a world to come with an omnipresent network and widespread public key encryption. National governments remain, but in a much diminished roll. A global government comes into being. Represenative democracy is augumented with the option of direct representation. Everyone has a professional represenative who is authorized and required to cast their vote on issues which are appropriate for his domain. At anytime, a voter can exercise his own right to vote directly, thus reducing my represenative's voting power by one. There are represenatives at levels which might be consistent with the current scheme: city, county, state, national, and global. I believe that the inertia of the massess will give represenatives in the larger domains the leway they require to impliment necessary but less than popular policies. Perhaps it should be implimented so that the larger the domain, the larger the percentage required to change a policy in that domain.
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme. If you have read all his novels (I assume you have) you'll notice that he mentions how the economy, and the resulting power from that pure free-market economy, is of a corporate nature, and that power lies not in the members of the board, but of the zaibatsus in themselves; that they behave as organic beings. His vision is far from anarchy, and his version of free-market libertarian economics should never be confused with the apolitical (antibehavior-control) aspects of anarchy. [also, I think that he isn't trying to make political or economic statements with his books, but that those details enhance the effect of his stories (just my opinion)] All this talk about one particular form of digicash has me wondering: why not multiple forms of digicurrency? This would decentralize any kind of power electronic banks would have through monetary strength, and ensure that those banks do not add themselves to the system as inconspicuous political parties (anarchy is the end, and reducing, not creating, political power is the means, right?).
Alexander Reynolds () writes:
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom") I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_ books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone companies to give teachers "free" long distance) The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution, and banking) The barriers to entry in many markets are historically low, there's no way a natural monopoly could exist, for instance, in software, unless software patents (e.g. GOVERNMENT) prevent you from developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_. Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules. -Ray, capitalist exploiter extraordinaire -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Ray wrote:
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")
Freedom is a tricky word. Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions "absolute and complete freedom?" Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under some businessman's control. Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc. You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc. Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period. Rulers use many tools, yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules upon them. This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing around.
I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_ books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their individual political and economical theories. Aldous Huxley did so in his _Brave New World_. Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist "free-"market state. Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.
The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution, and banking)
In this country, the same argument is wrong. There are anti-trust laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form. Some theorize that this is the reason Japan has grown so fast.
The barriers to entry in many markets are historically low,
???? Go to Japan and try to start a business there!
developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.
I'll take that as a friendly jibe.
Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
It's both. Do some fiction and non-fiction reading. Alex Reynolds
Alexander Reynolds () writes:
On Sat, 16 Oct 1993, Ray wrote:
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")
Freedom is a tricky word. Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions "absolute and complete freedom?" Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under some businessman's control. Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc.
Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's will to control that property. Non-scarcity _is_ an issue. If there is scarcity, there will be competition for the limited resources -- whether it is individuals, businesses, or nations. We see this all throughout nature and all throughout history and there isn't anything to indicate that you can just ignore it. Your brand of anarchism won't work without massive reprogramming of the populace's meme structures. Since you're so keen on "proof by fiction", take a look at Demolition Man, or perhaps Star Trek where everything is free and replicated.
You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc.
Actually I can, I have a dictionary.
Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period. Rulers use many tools,
Well if that is what it means than anarchy is physically impossible. You can't avoid the laws of physics. To survive, you must eat, to eat, you must work, or someone must work for you. If you are forced to work, you are being ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them. No doubt someone will bring up automation or nanotechnology, but they work because they significantly lower scarcity, hence the non-scarcity requirement.
yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules upon them. This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing around.
If net-cash is a tool used by rules, then we are the rulers, and we are ruling ourselves. I don't subscribe to these absurd socialist buzzwords though. Money was invented for specific reasons which benefit everyone -- both rulers and the ruled. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how economics works.
I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_ books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their individual political and economical theories. Aldous Huxley did so in his _Brave New World_. Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist "free-"market state. Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.
Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy. You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove it through a story book world, hence I take object to your ridiculous assertion:
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's
Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution, and banking)
In this country, the same argument is wrong. There are anti-trust laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form. Some theorize that this is the reason Japan has grown so fast.
Actually, Japan has grown so fast because it came from so little. Look at the growth rates of South American economies, many averaging 10+% annual growth. Once you reach the level of complexity and bureaucracy of a typical western economy, you start to slow down. (e.g. marginal returns) It's easy to get 100% economic growth if your GNP is smaller than McDonalds and you are just switching to a capitalist industrial system. Anyway, My argument was that zaibatsus are metastable and will break up without government restrictions in the market. Your argument is that I am wrong because America has anti-trust laws?? Again, your argument is circular and makes no sense. America's antitrust laws do more harm than good.
The barriers to entry in many markets are historically low,
???? Go to Japan and try to start a business there!
Because they have an anti-capitalist INTERVENTIONIST system, this is an argument against GOVERNMENT, not free markets.
developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.
I'll take that as a friendly jibe.
I intended for you to read it so you could learn something.
Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
It's both. Do some fiction and non-fiction reading.
Fine, may I suggest you pick up a dictionary? Anarchy: 1. the condition of a society without a government 2. an ideal society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy complete freedom. Taken directly from Webster's. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
The very same thing could be said about anarchosocialism. Without the fictional non-selfinterested man and the postulate of non-scarcity it couldn't possibly work. (taking 3. anarchy - "absolute and complete freedom")
Freedom is a tricky word. Is freedom from governoeconomic restrictions "absolute and complete freedom?" Skinner (the behaviorologist) would say no, because the money which isn't under the government's control is under some businessman's control. Ayn Rand would say that non-scarcity isn't an issue, i.e. when the sun dies, mankind will have found a substitute, etc.
Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's will to control that property.
That assumes that the majority has a will.
Non-scarcity _is_ an issue. If there is scarcity, there will be competition for the limited resources -- whether it is individuals, businesses, or nations. We see this all throughout nature and all throughout history and there isn't anything to indicate that you can just ignore it. Your brand of anarchism won't work without massive reprogramming of the populace's meme structures.
You're also assuming that I am pushing Ayn Rand's pseudoanarchist theories on you. Quit it, I never made any statement defending her stance.
Since you're so keen on "proof by fiction", take a look at Demolition Man, or perhaps Star Trek where everything is free and replicated.
I am not "keen on proof by fiction." You are putting words in my mouth just so you can have a moral high ground upon which to stand! Again, quit it! I'll make myself clear, OK? Some fiction writers present ideas and theories and philosophies, all of which are compatible metaphors in my mind. So if a writer takes 1000 pages to present her view of utopia, and defends it with logic and clear-cut style, then she obviously has more on her mind than a few opinions which she likes to spew. Proof itself is circumspect; I could use statistics on almost anything to run circles around you no matter where you might stand. I never said you could prove with fiction, but I did say that you could theorize using fiction. Ayn Rand did. She said that people working for their own good will prosper and that "resources be damned!" etc. etc.
You can't throw around terms like anarchy and anarchosocialism, etc.
Actually I can, I have a dictionary.
Yes, with only a dictionary and obviously a closed mind you can define and isolate anything the world!
Anarchy means no rules, no rulers, period. Rulers use many tools,
Well if that is what it means than anarchy is physically impossible. You can't avoid the laws of physics. To survive, you must eat, to eat, you must work, or someone must work for you.
I never said anarchy was easy. If you want to starve, then that is your choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to by THEIR rules.
If you are forced to work, you are being ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them.
That is what a "free-"market economy does! It removes government rule over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.
No doubt someone will bring up automation or nanotechnology, but they work because they significantly lower scarcity, hence the non-scarcity requirement.
yes, including money, to coerce behavior out of people and enforce rules upon them. This includes the grand scheme of net-cash people are throwing around.
If net-cash is a tool used by rules, then we are the rulers, and we are ruling ourselves. I don't subscribe to these absurd socialist buzzwords though. Money was invented for specific reasons which benefit everyone -- both rulers and the ruled. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how economics works.
I have read a good deal on the nature of money; its history and its use. Money is a tool to perpetuate the power of its possessor. Its use doesn't neccessarily benefit the "ruled," but it certainly benefits the ruler, otherwise it would not have been created. Don't tell me that money is a means to quantify value of product, and that it has no power effects, because a Monetarist would show you why it does.
I have never seen someone argue economic theory by quoting _fiction_ books. Gibson (and Sterling) are as clueless on economic issues as they are on computers (e.g. Gibson's plan to improve schools by forcing telephone companies to give teachers "free" long distance)
Some authors (including Rand) use fiction as a means to present their individual political and economical theories. Aldous Huxley did so in his _Brave New World_. Using numerous Rand works I could argue a pseudoanarchist "free-"market state. Like I said before, I feel Gibson is not intending to argue any economic theories but to add depth to his storytelling.
Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
You didn't read the book.
You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove it through a story book world, hence I take object to your ridiculous assertion:
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's
Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
Again you do not understand what anarchy is! Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or Dignity! That is a non-fiction book with an incredibly scientific view, so you should have no moral qualms at least reading it!
The only way the super corporations in Gibson's world could exist is through government help (e.g. Japan's restrictions on trade, distribution, and banking)
In this country, the same argument is wrong. There are anti-trust laws which prevent American zaibatsus to form. Some theorize that this is the reason Japan has grown so fast.
Actually, Japan has grown so fast because it came from so little. Look at the growth rates of South American economies, many averaging 10+% annual growth. Once you reach the level of complexity and bureaucracy of a typical western economy, you start to slow down. (e.g. marginal returns) It's easy to get 100% economic growth if your GNP is smaller than McDonalds and you are just switching to a capitalist industrial system.
I said : "SOME THEORIZE." I did not say that I feel this way! Stop attacking me for total bullshit!
Anyway, My argument was that zaibatsus are metastable and will break up without government restrictions in the market. Your argument is that I am wrong because America has anti-trust laws?? Again, your argument is circular and makes no sense. America's antitrust laws do more harm than good.
Ok, how is it a circular argument? You feel that monopolies cannot exist without government intervention, yet at the same time America cannot have monopolies with government intervention. Your argument is contradictory.
The barriers to entry in many markets are historically > > > low,
???? Go to Japan and try to start a business there!
Because they have an anti-capitalist INTERVENTIONIST system, this is an argument against GOVERNMENT, not free markets.
developing. Stop reading fiction for your education and pick up David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_.
I'll take that as a friendly jibe.
I intended for you to read it so you could learn something.
Obviously we BOTH have some things to learn.
Anarchy is the non-existence of rulers, not the non-existence of rules.
It's both. Do some fiction and non-fiction reading.
Fine, may I suggest you pick up a dictionary?
Fine, may I suggest you read something other than a dictionary?
Anarchy: 1. the condition of a society without a government 2. an ideal society having no government and made up of individuals who enjoy complete freedom.
Freedom from others monetary sytems? Freedom from each others guns?
Taken directly from Webster's.
Well, you can read alright, but can you _understand_?
-- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
Science IS faith, as much as religion is, but on a much more inconspicuous level.
Alexander Reynolds () writes:
Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's will to control that property.
That assumes that the majority has a will.
Sooner or later there is going to be a conflict. If you can do anything you desire with your body and the surrounding matter/energy, that is equivalent to absolute property rights. If a sufficiently large group of people come along and restrict your activity, you don't have absolute and complete freedom, QED.
I never said anarchy was easy. If you want to starve, then that is your choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to by THEIR rules.
And if you disagree with the way the majority of your "collective"/commune is using the collective property? Love it or leave it? What happens if a capitalist is magically transported to this society and he wishes to start a business. No one is going to force him to not behave like an entrepreneur?
If you are forced to work, you are being ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them.
That is what a "free-"market economy does! It removes government rule over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.
And anarchosocialism removes it from business and places it among the group. Either way, a group of people has some control over your life. By your definition of anarchism, it is an oxymoron.
Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
You didn't read the book.
Objectivism is a _philosophy_, not an economic theory. Objectivists tend to be pro-laissez-faire simply because it follows naturally from individualism. That's why the objectivism usenet group is called alt.philosophy.objectivism, not sci.econ.objectivism. If Atlas Shrugged presented an economic theory, could you please define the model rigorously? (If you have taken atleast Econ 101 you will know what I mean by "model")
You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove it through a story book world, hence I take objection to your ridiculous assertion:
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's
Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
Again you do not understand what anarchy is! Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or
You still didn't answer my criticism. In the quote above you state "It is only through theory that a pseudoanarchist capitalist state can exist" and as proof of this bald assertion, you state "read Atlas Shrugged" The implication you made was, by reading a book of fiction book you can disprove a economic theory. Care to explain that? There are two ways to disprove a theory: 1) show that it isn't self-consistent 2) apply the theory and produce a counter example from reality. You haven't shown (1), and since Atlas Shrugged isn't reality and never has been, (2) doesn't work either. This is my last message on the subject. You should think about what cypher technology can do and compare that to your philosophy. A functioning BlackNet(tm) won't produce a non-market non-laissez-faire system. If anything it will promote buying and selling of data, dossiers, stolen designs, property, etc. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
According to Alexander Reynolds:
On the other-hand, you can also envision an anarchist future much like Gibson's novells where everyone is a free agent and thus out for his own good: capitalism.
I agree. I was relieved to read a sci-fi which wasn't socialistic.
It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point. Gibson's futuristic view is not anarchy, it is multi-national oligarchy to an extreme.
I have to differ here. These mutli-national (all-powerfull?) corporations were held powerless by those with the technology to do so. This is the essence of why I have developed strong computer skills; technology is power. Power to protect yourself from many threats.
His vision is far from anarchy, and his version of free-market libertarian economics should never be confused with the apolitical (antibehavior-control) aspects of anarchy. [also, I think that he isn't trying to make political or economic statements with his books, but that those details enhance the effect of his stories (just my opinion)]
Well, I don't think mankind will ever shed all forms of behavioral control. Man has an inherent set of norms which I doubt he will shed, and remain civilized. J. Michael Diehl ;^) |*The 2nd Amendment is there in case the mdiehl@triton.unm.edu | Government forgets about the 1st! <RL> Mike.Diehl@f29.n301.z1 |*God is a good Physicist, and an even .fidonet.org | better Mathematician. <Me> al945@cwns9.ins.cwru.edu|*I'm just looking for the opportunity to (505) 299-2282 (voice) | be Politically Incorrect! <Me> Can we impeach him yet? |*Protected by 18 USC 2511 and 18 USC 2703. PGP Key = 7C06F1 = A6 27 E1 1D 5F B2 F2 F1 12 E7 53 2D 85 A2 10 5D
Dear Sir, Without enrolling in yours and others discussion about anarcho/capital/social/ isms Ad Nauseam... would you mind taking this SOMPLACE ELSE... this discussion is NOT appropriate for the list WE have REAL issues and problems to address... Thanx in advance... cheers kelly --
On Sun, 17 Oct 1993, Kelly Goen wrote:
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 17:17:19 -0400 From: Kelly Goen <kelly@netcom.com> To: chrome@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: ENOUGH ALREADY!!!(Was Re: Gibson
Dear Sir,
Without enrolling in yours and others discussion about anarcho/capital/social/ isms Ad Nauseam... would you mind taking this SOMPLACE ELSE... this discussion is NOT appropriate for the list WE have REAL issues and problems to address... Thanx in advance... cheers kelly --
I said this once, and I guess I'll have to enlighten those who were ignorant enough not to read the first time around! My first message ended something like this: "how about multiple forms of digital cash? This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power." Does this figure into the ideological framework of your newsgroup? It looked like, but if you still think that I am way out of line with that comment, just drop a line and I'll have myself removed from the list. OK? That's all for now, and please don't hesitate if something else like thi bothers you! -Sincerely pissed off at everyone who keeps sending me mail like this, -Alex Reynolds
Alexander Reynolds () writes:
My first message ended something like this: "how about multiple forms of digital cash? This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power."
Sounds good but money isn't fiction. If there's nothing of value backing these "multiple forms of digital cash" you will still need to go to the evil nasty bank president. Otherwise, it's just monopoly money. That's what the bank of the internet proposes to do (provide digicash with backing). I doubt real banks would bother with digicash anyway since they like having financial data on you. The cost of implementing such a system for the bank would be far more expensive than the benefit received by the few customers who appreciate privacy. An enterprising credit card company might chance it sooner or later. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries --
Alexander Reynolds () writes:
My first message ended something like this: "how about multiple forms of digital cash? This removes a centralized monopolized bank as a form of electronic power, i.e. the bank president could refuse digi-loans to those elements of society he figured would usurp his(her?) bank's power."
Sounds good but money isn't fiction. If there's nothing of value backing these "multiple forms of digital cash" you will still need to go to the evil nasty bank president. Otherwise, it's just monopoly money.
That's what the bank of the internet proposes to do (provide digicash with backing). I doubt real banks would bother with digicash
So what would back digicash? A promise to pay? That is all I can see at the moment, other than the physical force of a government, which would give digicash its worth, and somehow, human nature being what it is, I doubt that would be a strong foundation for a digital economy.
participants (6)
-
Alexander Reynolds -
David Williams -
J. Michael Diehl -
kelly＠netcom.com -
rjc＠gnu.ai.mit.edu -
Sandy