Re: What motivates crypto-folk?

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

I regret that I've been too busy to comment on much on the left vs.
right debate here, but Mats Bergstrom's analysis merit's comment:

> I don't think mayists should be categorized as ultra right-wingers.

"Mayists"! Kind of like Maoists--but different!

> Save that epithet for those in favour of both unrestricted market
> capitalism AND a strong government and judicical system to keep
> the small guys in leashs, sort of an oligarchy and very far from
> anarchy. And I don't think any ultra left-wingers are lurking on
...

Yes, I've seen few if any of these extremes on this list.

> There is a way to privacy (through crypto-anarchy) separated
> from unrestricited anarcho-capitalism that might be defined as
> more to the left (depending on your semantics of course).
> I don't have a good name for it, but a vision. Taxation only
> of hardware (in a broad sense) production might be enforcable
> in spite of strong crypto and could pay for a minimal standard
> of living for all citizens of an industrialized country-unit
> (at least if population growth stops) including the lame or
> lazy. And some environmental issues are too important to be
> decided by private enterprise. National parks do not have to
> cost anything if we just decide that unexploited land is not
> to be owned by anyone (well, the present owners will be poorer
> but every political change has it's victims).

Mats has accurately captured the flavor of crypto anarchy, and how it
differes from more conventionally libertarian anarchocapitalist views.
Specifically, large corporations are unlikely to thrive...for the
simple Cyperpunkish reason that a large group can't very well keep
secrets. (I'm not arguing that an Intel or a Pfizer _deserves_ to have
its secrets sold, only that this is a consequence of increased
informational degrees of freedom, privacy, and strong crypto.)

I'm suspicious about the "minimal standard of living" point, though,
but will note that private charity tends to work when the
disabled/retarded component of the population is less than about 10%.
(When more and more people claim disabilities, inability to work,
psychic damage, or just plain unwillingness to work, charity won't
work. And my belief is that coercion of charity (=taxes) also won't
work.) 

> But such a pinko-green approach to privacy does not, and should
> not in my humble opinion, have to extend to public funding of
> education, libraries, minorities, arts, infobahns or other soft
> issues. And it gives no one a right to pry into my software
> collection or drug cabinet.
> 
> Mats Bergstrom

But I mostly agree with everything Mats has said. Leftists should take
heart that crypto anarchy also reduces the power of corporations (many
of whom climb into bed with government the first chance they get to
suppress competition, get favorable laws and patents, etc. As
Mussolini said, "Fascism *is* corporatism.")

Many leftists I know claim to be anti-capitalist, naturally. But they
are often deeply market-oriented, participating in "farmer's markets"
with zeal. To libertarians, of course, this *is* capitalism! (Read
Karl Hess' "Capitalism for Kids" for an easy treatment of this. Lots
of other libertarian books, too.)

This list has traditionally not been a place to debate left-right or
libertarian issues. Passing references, yes, but not serious debate.
In accord with this unwritten rule, I'll stop now.


--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."