RE: Why does the state still stand:

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 14 May 1996, blanc wrote:

> From: 	Hal [on the idea of companies operating fully anonymously]
> 
> It might be interesting to make a list of all the problems people can
> think of why this idea won't work, paired with proposed solutions and
> workarounds - sort of a mini FAQ for this important (some might say
> ultimate) cypherpunk model.
> .....................................................................
> 
> I think this is a much needed discussion  - in particular as it comes at a time when Uni is is "somewhat disconcerted" at the defeatist attitude of some cypherpunks and since TCMay is getting ready to read us the Cypherpunks Bill of Rights regarding the subsidizatoin of other's people's cyber existence (heh). 
> 
> 3 problems which immediately come to mind:
> 
> .  What if someone, hired on one occasion but fired at another, decides
in anger to "turn coat" and report everyone to the IRS (or other fine
government agency)?

The entire organization would clearly have to be double blinded.  If this
can be done for mailing lists (which I believe it can) it can be done for
corporations too.  The real trick is getting the costs of anonymous (and I
mean secure anonymous) communications low enough.

> 
> .  What if a company does not pay as expected - other than adopting
> Assassination Politics, what method could an employee use towards
> getting their expected remuneration for work done?

If payment is made weekly, it should be made in advance to an escrow agent
who would issue a certificate that the payment for employee r2dd54 has
been received.  The payment would then not be released to anyone without
the consent of the corporation and the employee.

Obviously the escrow agent would have to be trusted.

This prevents an anonymous employee from running off with money without
working and prevents an anonymous corporation from screwing the employee.

Even if a payment gets hung up in a dispute, it's only for a week.

You could break the payments into monthly, or bi yearly or however you
like.

> .  Wouldn't everyone need to have two jobs (or source of regularly
> accepted cash), in order to be able to pay for services where suppliers
> do not accept virtual cash transactions? (TCM has mentioned before about
> the need to pay for some things in tiny quantities - like quarters for a
> phone call, etc.)

This is what unemployment is for.  No reported income = no job = get
portions of your previously paid tax back before you die.

In addition, why not exchange virutal cash for spending money offshore and
have it forwarded to you?

It's not hard to hide the kind of small pure cash transactions that day to
day living requires (Food, telephone, etc).  The only problem is the large
purchases which require reportable type transactions.

For these a company running at a constant net operating loss could be
formed to purchase cars for resale (funny how no one ever buys them) and
manage property (which no one seems to ever lease).

>      ..
> Blanc

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com