Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?

[Peter Hendrickson]

>Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
>ph at netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) writes:
>> It appears to be widely believed that cryptoanarchy is irreversible.
>> Everybody believes that the race to deploy or forbid strong cryptography
>> will define the outcome for a long time.
>>
>> I can't think of a reason why this should be so.
><snip>

> Well, once I've got my strong crypto and electronic commerce, and 20
> or so virtual identities to do things for me, and the gub'ment can't
> tell what money I'm making and spending, so they can't tax me. So if
> they can't tax me, and they can't tax lots of folks, then they can't
> pay their jack-booted thugs. So the goverment becomes irrelevant. It
> can't support a huge police state infrastructure, and certainly can't
> but mega-crays to break my crypto, so how're they going to retain
> control?
> When we say anarchy, we mean anarchy.

This only works if there are large numbers of people who think it is
a good idea.  Otherwise, the resources of the Federal Government
may be directed quite effectively against a small number of people.

If you can get a life prison term for your strong crypto you may
hesitate to use it.  If not, then you may get to be an example
for everybody else.

Peter Hendrickson
ph at netcom.com