Message from a Parallel Universe

[Aimee Farr]

Tim May wrote:

> At 7:49 PM -0500 4/15/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
> >Tim May wrote:
> >
> >  > >I get what you guys are saying about how maybe individual readers of
> >>  >books could decide for themselves like what books they could read. I
> >>  >even hear your point of view that government regulation of
> >>  >bookstores, writers, magazines, and libraries might be dispensed
> >>  >with in some far-off utopian future.  But, like, I don't understand
> >>  >how it would work. How would people know what was the truth and what
> >>  >was a lie. You guys talk about these mysterious "reputations," but
> >>  >couldn't authors _lie_ about their reputations, couldn't publishers
> >>  >deceived the gullible? And what's to keep an author from pretending
> >>  >to be another author, or what's to keep him from copying the style
> >>  >and ideas of another writer? How would people even know what was
> >>  >important and what wasn't? And couldn't foreign intelligence agents
> >>  >write stuff that was uncontrolled, contaminating our value
> >>  >propositions? Really, punks, I'm just seeking a value proposition
> >>  >for why it is that this idea of "literary anarchy" would work.
> >>
> >
> >*laughter*... that is damn funny. Tim, this is not to say that I don't
> >respect your fiendish intent.

> And my point is a very serious one: saying that "anarchy" cannot work
> in markets is not much different from saying anarchy (uncoerced
> transactions) cannot work in areas where in fact uncoerced
> transactions are the _norm_.

Markets are anarchy. I think a lot works. What sells in a pitch, however, is
a different matter. So are the needs and concerns of respective
marketplaces. An intelligence marketplace, especially one such as I "threw
out" falls in the "special needs" category.

I was not disparaging your ideas, merely trying to envision a live funding
opportunity so that these ideas could be developed and toyed with. How could
this be construed as anything but a vote of confidence?

I use a lot of elicitation tactics. (i.e., pissing Tim off is a great way to
find out things. Tim's "talky" button is provocation. So, I punch it. Good
threads often result.)

> It's much like the school choice issue. People in the U.S. tend to
> treat their local public schools as immutable consequences of the
> system we live in. Regardless of the issue of how bad schools are,
> etc., this is simply not true.
>
> Try replacing "school choice" with "grocery store choice."
>
> "How will parents ensure the nutritional needs of their children if
> this "nutritional anarchy" is allowed to replace our orderly system
> in which households are assigned a regional grocery store and
> nutritional standards are satisfied?"
>
> As I said to Ray Dillinger, the mistake many make is to try to solve
> the whole problem, the whole enchilada. They balk at the complexity
> of transforming an economy into an untraceable digital cash and
> pseudonym economy. Well, this is crazy.

I agree with Tim. I still want to find money to apply what you have been
talking about - for untold centuries - in a real-life transactional
environment, under current realities.  I don't expect that it would meet
your standards, or even support your ideals, but it would explore some of
the technology and mercantile dynamics that have been bounced around here.

I think Tim took my questions as questioning the "value proposition" of
his/your ideas. This was not my intent. I meant "value proposition" in terms
of getting some bank to test and develop some of these concepts, nothing
more.

> Better to think about selective markets bypassing U.S. or Saudi or
> French regulatory control. And not just by U.S. businesses moving to
> France, and vice versa, which only "slows down" the regulators, but
> to  make the leap into cypherspace.

There are several futuristic societies and think-tanks exploring virtual
corporation/organization alternatives...  Forum-shopping is purely a legal
and tax-related question, and has been for a long time, as we all know. Many
futurists predicted the rise of the virtual sovereign - citing offshore
havens, but this theory seems to have been placed in question of late.

> Which markets? Not for me to worry about, except to consider some
> examples to see how things _might_ evolve.

Which is all I was doing.

> Anarchy is much more the norm than people think.

I don't disagree with this statement, ...how could I?

~Aimee