Re: Voluntary Governments?

[Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>]

solman@MIT.EDU writes:
> That's because neither is. A and B are just two folks who might want to
> communicate with each other. Party A may have a "law" that prohibits any
> form of fraud and fines violators an amount set by some "politician".
> The law that A chooses might be quite restrictive (like many
> of the truth in advertising laws we have in the physical realm.) B is just
> some random person who wants to communicate with A. Maybe he has something
> he wants to sell to A. Suppose that B is not adhering to the laws that A
> has chosen. When he attempts communication, A's agents will inform B's
> agents that A wouldn't feel safe under B's laws. One of three things will
> happen:

> 1) B really would like to do business with A so he temporarilly accepts A's
>    laws. This probably involves giving the following process:

I think I now understand what it is you're saying.  But the protocol you
describe is merely that of a trusted escrow agent, which is not a 
government.

Governments can sometimes act in that capacity (for example, if you
default on your mortgage, the govt. will hand over your house to the
mortgage holder).   One difference between the government and other
trusted "adjudicators" is that -- and this goes back to an earlier idea
in this thread -- the government has the force of arms to back up its
decisions.  (If you don't make your monthly payment, the bank goes to
the adjudicator [the govt.] who turns over the property to the bank and
evicts you.  If you refuse to leave, the govt. sends men with guns to
your house to force you out.)  Any other agent would need to have some
economic or other pressure it could apply to you to compel you to follow
the "rules" you agreed to.

Without the threat of force, though, this can hardly be called a government.
You're simply taking an existing concept -- that of a trusted adjudicator,
which need have no connection with a government -- and calling it
"government".  This doesn't make it so.  I am reminded of this [Lewis
Carroll?] quote Steve Bellovin posted several months ago:

  ``When *I* use a word,'' Humpty Dumpy said, in rather a scornful tone,
  ``it means just what I choose it to mean---neither more nor less.''


> >                                   Please describe how a "voluntary"
> > government would prevent "aliens" from conducting their own economic
> > transactions completely outside this system.
> 
> It wouldn't. But a cyberspatial government could limit the contact
> that ailiens have with its citizenry, thus denying the aliens access to
> the information and resources of the government's citizenry. In tyranical
> cases, the government could even prevent aliens from explaining to the
> citizens just how much money they are losing by remaining in the government.

This whole scheme rests on the willingness of relatively large groups to
put themselves under the control and protection of this cyberspace 
"government" in the first place.  I still don't see what the motivation
will be.  What advantage to me will there be in allying myself with this
government, when I could instead choose a particular trusted arbitrator
or adjudicator or escrow agent on a case-by-case basis when and if it's
needed?  How will one of these governments ever acquire the critical mass
necessary to make anyone care what their rules are?

And the question of motivation is central to your conclusion, which was:

> > > Without extreme cultural upheaval, it is highly probable that voluntary
> > > economic coercion alone will be sufficient to allow big government
> > > to move from the physical realm into cyberspace.


-- Jeff