weak cryptoanarchy

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

Some non-cypherpunks seem afraid of Tim May's cryptoanarchy, 
which, to quote Dr. Denning's recent paper, "suggest the 
impending arrival of a Brave New World in which governments, as 
we know them, have crumbled, disappeared, and been replaced by 
virtual communities of individuals doing as they wish without 
interference."

Perhaps these people are worrying needlessly.  I don't think 
cryptoanarchy (in this strong form) is a likely scenario for the 
future.  Even if strong cryptography and anonymous transaction 
systems are used by everyone, governments can continue to 
control people's physical actions and properties.  The physical 
world will continue to exist, even if it becomes relatively less 
important.

I think a better prediction for the implications of strong 
crypto is what I would call "weak cryptoanarchy."  That is, 
cryptography will allow virtual communities the option to exist 
without the possibility of inteference by force.  Certainly some 
virtual communities, such as moderated discussion groups, will 
opt to have formal or informal governments.  The key is that 
people will have the choice of participating in communities 
where physical violence will be absolutely powerless.

Stated in this form, cryptoanarchy is hardly controversial.  
Plus, this weak form of cryptoanarchy has a much better chance 
of being realized, because it does not require the collapse of 
existing governments, only the creation of new communities 
without governments.