Message from a Parallel Universe

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

> Markets are anarchy.

No, markets are not anarchy. But let's focus on 'free markets' since
that's what you really intended to address in your overly broad assertion.

A 'free market' exists because everyone does one of two things, they
sell, they buy. Clearly nothing 'anarchic' about this as any other
activity (which would be allowed under a anarchy) isn't relevant to the
market functioning and in fact would most likely impinge on the 'free'
part of the market. Consider Tim's claim that in a free market he should
be able to 'throw somebody out of my business because they don't have the
sexual preference I want or they happen to use a wheelchair'.

Simply because something is 'distributed' and not centrally managed
doesn't in and of itself imply any sort of 'anarchy'; the literal
definition or the new age crypto-anarchic one of 'no coercion in the
market', which puts every marketing dweeb on the planet out of a job.
This of course addresses one of the requirements of any 'free market', the
goods are undifferentiable within a given consumer and vendor set
(n human market has never met this criteria, even in principle).

All a 'market' really is is a semi-stable collection of resources,
traders, and users which is balanced to such an extent that it won't
significantly favor one party or another. If it did the market would
collapse as 'value' accrued to the heavy weight (a failure crypto-anarcy
doesn't even recognize). Note, as many economists (some much liked by
crypto-anarchists like Hayek) are quick to point out, "where does the
stability come from?"

Nobody (!!!) has an answer to this. A lot of supposition and 'wish it
worked this way' but no clear definitive mechanism is understood. The
really interesting aspect is the psychological dependencies that so many
ignore (economists and crypto-anarchist alike).

> 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.

You think a lot of what works? Works how? What sells in a pitch is what
the buyer is willing to settle for (unless you're 
cheating/misrepresenting). Respective marketplaces to what? Control
economies? Our current little bit of this, little bit of that market?
'Intelligence marketplace', do you mean 'intelligent marketplace'? That
sounds a lot like a 'control economy' because it implies the statistical
mechanical properties of individual choice are being managed to another
layer. Or by 'intelligent' do you mean the universaly saught after
requirement that everyone know everything of relevance across the market
as a whole?

"I threw out" what? What "special needs" can a market, especially a
free market, have? Isn't this defined axiomaticaly as the collective
desires and plans of the sellers, and buyers? And if you're talking of a
'buyer' in a 'free market' how can he get 'special needs' filled when the
market operates by interchangeable components? If the need is that
'special then there is likely to be only a couple of sellers and hence no
'free market' can exists since there is a clear supply side boundary
condition.

> 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?

There isn't one because it take so much more than e-cash and an anonymous
remailer to execute.

Nobody buys their milk at a given price because of 'confidence' in
anything. They buy it because it's the most convenient (and not the
disparity between this and the concept of 'cost' in economic terms - they
are NOT synonymous in any way).

> > 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.

Unfortunately this still does't remove the requirement of a minimal set of
services with a minimal set of users. Unfortunately for crypto-anarchy to
work this must be almost the entire society. It must be universal,
otherwise it will get eaten by more 'efficient' strategies in the 'mixed
market'. It's also worth noting that 'mixed markets' are not equivalent to
'free markets' nor are there any clear transformations thereof.

> 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.

It isn't a bank you need, it's a casino. The problem is getting it in/out
of the 'small market' and moving it into the 'extant market' (ie real
world) without ruining either.

> 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.

And why? Because your 'offshore' is there 'onshore'. The fence is a
mobious one.

> > Anarchy is much more the norm than people think.
> 
> I don't disagree with this statement, ...how could I?

Because it isn't valid? Because it twists the use of 'anarchy' which means
without head or in the sense of crypto-anarchy, without heirarchy.
Everyone lives there lives adrift in a sea of heirarchy. It's the natural
human condition.

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone.

                                             James Madison

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------