cryptography eliminates lawyers?

[Dar Scott]

Black Unicorn wrote,
>On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Dar Scott wrote:
>
>> Black Unicorn wrote,
[snip}

We seem to be having problems with the meanings of words.  For example, I
make a distinction between certification and licensing.  Also, I see
violence and coercion as being ultimately related to something physical.
I'm not sure what "proper", "competent to practice"... mean.  And I see a
big difference in a market based monopoly and a government based monopoly.


[snip]
>Didn't I just say this above?
>
>A centralized, or several centralized authorities.

I had assumed you meant by authority an agent of the state that is able to
envoke or otherwise wield the physical force of the state.  By a certifying
entities I was refering to private organizations that had no similar power
or to government organizations that had only the power to provide
information.

By a licensing entity I was refering to an organization that can coerce to
prevent the unlicensed from doing the licensed behavior.  By coercion I
meant the threat of physical force or the force itself.  Though one might
think of physical force as applying to murder, kidnapping, slavery,
assault, robbery, physical theft, I would also apply it to theft or damage
of abstract property that has properties like physical property.  I intend
for these to apply to many actions of the state.

Perhaps I erred in applying "certification" and "license" to these
contrasting concepts, but I do think the distinction is important and the
observation that there are fuzzy areas in between does not remove that.

If I have a license from the local gang to sell drugs and the guy across
the street does not, I could encourage the gang to do something and the guy
might get shot.  Similarly, if I was a PE and my competitor across the
street was not, I could encourage the state to do something that--with
several stages of his lack of cooperation--results in his finding a gun in
his face or worse.

>I guess the center of my question is, how can you apply Web of Trust to
>e.g. a university degree.  Who cares what Bob and Alice think my degree
>is in, the client only wants to know from the institution.

It does not matter why people would trust a certifying entity.  It might
have a great earned reputation, it might "borrow" some reputation from
bonding or audits, or it might have ties to the Real World.

>  Licensing can only be done by an
>>      entity that can use physical force to prevent
>>      buying and selling legal services.
>
>I believe you are incorrect, but I guess my main concern is your
>characterization of "Physical force."  I am assuming you mean coercion,
>and not that you will be jailed or such (though this may be the case).
>
>I would argue that as long as coercion exists (violence of any type,
>physical or not) you have a licensing authority.  Take the hollywood
>blacklist.  No one actually pushed around suspected pinko screenwriters
>(well, at least, if anyone did, it was incendential) but they certainly
>faced a great deal of persuasive motivation.  Look at the committee as
>the licensing authority here.  (Licensing you as a non-communist as it were).

It seems I am using coercion in a different sense.  Unless blacklisting has
physical force at its root enforcement mechanism it is not coercion and is
very fragile.

>If several governmental and private authorities were in the practice of
>certifing that Bob has a law degree from Tremont University, and that he
>is competent to practice in D.C., and given that the citizens of D.C.
>will look for these credentials, isn't this a license?  Afterall, Bob has
>to pass some test or requirement to get the signatures.  Isn't this
>coercion in your definition?

No.  I apologize for any confusion.

>Can't the multiple authorities set common
>or near common guidelines?  Rather, don't they HAVE to in order to have
>their signatures worth the electrons they are transmitted with?

In general, No.  Under many conditions market forces make services alike,
but more often competing businesses find particular market niches.  I would
expect that different certs would cover different levels of expertise,
different specializations and different breadths of specializations.  Any
lawyer might have a dozen certs.  I would not expect there to be a single
level of certification for all applications.  I know of several companies
in which the primary product designer has no engineering degree.

>If you take the exteme position you seem to, there's an antitrust case here.
I don't insist there has to be a variety.  I only desire that coercion does
not come into play in preventing it.  As I said, if a natural monopoly
forms at times, I am not worried.

>Am I not "licensing" my key signature to people provided they pass my key
>signature criteria?  Am I not doing violence by withholding my signature
>and the benefits it might convey for certain "terms?"
[snip]
>This is the trap of the licensing argument.

I see a big difference in withholding a signature and sending gunmen.
There is no violence in withholding a signature.

>The evil is not licensing, which I think serves a real purpose, but
>created convenience fees, taxation through the withholding of licensing
>and the use of other government largess.   I wrote a massive piece on this
>and sent it to the list about a year and a half ago.  With interest I will
>repost it.

Even if no one else is interested, I'd like to see it.

>The real question is how you decide what an authority to license is.  Is
>it to be dictated by government?  Or by market forces (i.e. the
>reputation of the licenser).

Yes, the government vs. market question is key, but I believe the answer is
in that distinction I used in contrasting terms "certification" and
"license".  The "who" is tied up in what the instrument is.

>> >I don't see how the net will eliminate the basic need for highly
>> >qualified professionals and the proof that they have credentials.
>>
>>      It won't.  The needs might shift a little but they
>>      will be there.
>
>Then why will lawyers, or a 'professional monopoly' be broken?
The meaning of "qualified professional" and "credentials" will be
market-based and multidimensional, not defined by the state or a group
already "qualified" using the state for enforcement.

[snip]
Concerning a market-based monopoly,
>>      Not so bad if it happens,
>>      but much more honest, efficient and softer-edged
>>      than "licensed to practice".
>
>I'm not so sure.  There will be a tremendous amount of corporate power in
>these authorities, and if (as you seem to be saying a few paragraphs up) it
>is hard to break into the trusted certification business, there is a
>monopoly again.
I don't really think this is a problem.  It is the force-based monopoly and
specifically the government-based monopoly I have a problem with.

[snip]
>Like the several state Bars?
The market advantage is slight.

[snip]
>So you have estentially admitted that a central authority is required?
>Or will be more often used?
Not required.

[snip]
>If your defintion of license is simply who does the coercing, I think you
>should reconsider.

What ever the word used, I see the distinction between 1) the assertion of
certain information and 2) the threat of force as being key.

Perhaps, I could have use the phrases "non-coercion-based" licensing and
"coercion-based" licensing, but I am not comfortable with these--trade
licensing invokes too violent of an image.

A note to all in government licensed trades:  I recognize that licensing is
part of the real world we live in.  Often one has to be licensed to
practice a favorite trade.  I do not mean to describe the licensed
themselves as violent.

Dar


===========================================================
Dar Scott               Home phone: +1 505 299 9497

Dar Scott Consulting         Voice: +1 505 299 5790
8637 Horacio Place NE        Email: darscott at aol.com
Albuquerque, NM  87111              dsc at swcp.com
                               Fax: +1 505 898 6525
http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html
===========================================================