Did the cryptography revolution begin too late?

[MoonShadow]

I want to clarify, I have no love for any corporation that makes deals with government, which happens to be all of them afaik.

You can think of my position as wishing to disarm corporations of their weapon, the government. So they can focus on the good they do, which is bringing me and my family things. And without government any that don't satisfy needs will simply fade away.

But without government how do corporations play nice with scarce resources like electromagnetic spectrum, the environment, fisheries, etc.?

What says that we want them to play nice?  all of these are examples of forms of commons, but we also have real examples of real successes when innovators don't play nice.  For example, Wifi, Bluetooth, PSK31, Spread spectrum and many other wireless technologies function so well in a crowded EM environment as a direct result of not playing nice, and development that proceeded under the premise that otherswould not play nice.  Wifi & bluetooth in particular use the same unlicensed band, and must function with interference in order to function at all.  And yet, you can buy smartphones today that allow you to use your wifi connection to use Skype while talking on your bluetooth headset inside of a coffeehouse that several other people are trying to do similar things.

[QuantumMechanic]

But without government how do corporations play nice with scarce resources like electromagnetic spectrum, the environment, fisheries, etc.?

Proposed solutions to these problems abound, but it's impossible to say what kind of laws would actually emerge to regulate these in a stateless society.  Different solutions would be tried in different areas, they'd be iteratively improved upon, and the best ones would become the most widely adopted.  On the question of how to get corporations to play nice, I addressed the issue of enforcement of the rule of law in a stateless society in my previous post in this thread.

Cognitive wireless mesh networks seem like a promising way of reducing the scarcity of electromagnetic spectrum.

Here's another video by that guy on these issues: https://www.youtube.com/user/fringeelements#p/u/3/qwCXOhDqRYc

[ribuck]

...Spread spectrum and many other wireless technologies function so well in a crowded EM environment as a direct result of not playing nice...

I would describe spread-spectrum as "playing nice", because it's not depending on the force of the state to exclude competitors.

For those who don't know "spread spectrum" technology, it's radio communication that doesn't use any specific frequency or "channel". Rather, it spreads the signal over a wide range of frequencies, but uses a coded pattern that allows a receiver to reconstruct the desired signal.

There's no fixed limit to the capacity of spread spectrum transmissions. As more people transmit at the same time, the effective data rate per user slows down (or, a voice communication gets more background noise), but no-one gets blocked out. A higher-power transmitter gets better results, of course, as does a more directional antenna, but it's a near-optimum way to share out the limited resource of the radio spectrum without any central authority.

[FatherMcGruder]

What says that we want them to play nice?  all of these are examples of forms of commons, but we also have real examples of real successes when innovators don't play nice.

What about examples where corporations didn't play nice resulting in a bad outcome, like the depletion of fisheries in the northern Atlantic? Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

[MoonShadow]

...Spread spectrum and many other wireless technologies function so well in a crowded EM environment as a direct result of not playing nice...

I would describe spread-spectrum as "playing nice", because it's not depending on the force of the state to exclude competitors.

The engineers of these technologies don't do things the way they do because 'playing nice in a small pen' is their primary concern, although it likely is of some concern.  If they just chose to do what is in their own interests only, without considering their impact on others, then eventually others would make undermining their success a priority.  However, if the engineers consider the impact on others, and try to minimize that impact, they stand a higher probability of success without interference themselves.

This is exactly why WiFi, Bluetooth and Zigbee can all share the same band in the same area and generally succeed at their primary missions.

[QuantumMechanic]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

[FreeMoney]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

I don't need any of that imaginary stuff.

[FatherMcGruder]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

I don't need any of that imaginary stuff.

Do you need any recourse against some jerk or group of jerks making harmful messes in your vicinity?

[MoonShadow]

What says that we want them to play nice?  all of these are examples of forms of commons, but we also have real examples of real successes when innovators don't play nice.

What about examples where corporations didn't play nice resulting in a bad outcome, like the depletion of fisheries in the northern Atlantic? Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

The northern Atlantic is largely a commons under the control of the EU as it is, so this is a case of government failures.  The assumption that a government is neccessary to make companies play by rules starts with the premise that government will make companies play by rules.  We have all grown up in societies with rather large governments, under the impression that government oversight is better than the alternatives, but history tells us something different.  I am not an anarchist, but I agree with the anarchists on this forum when they say that increased regulation/government is not a solution.  Government is force at it's core, there is no way around this.  Government regulations are more likely to harm the small fisherman than protect him or the natural world.  I don't have a solution to the problem of the depletion of natural fish stocks, but I know with high certainty that government isn't a solution either.

[QuantumMechanic]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

I don't need any of that imaginary stuff.

Seriously?!  Well, if states should fall in my lifetime, and there are enough people like you around, then I know what I'll be doing for a living!  Somebody's gonna be robbing your asses, so it might as well be me!   

Maybe there was some confusion here; I'm not suggesting any kind of centralized monopoly make and enforce laws.

[MoonShadow]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

I don't need any of that imaginary stuff.

Seriously?!  Well, if states should fall in my lifetime, and there are enough people like you around, then I know what I'll be doing for a living!  Somebody's gonna be robbing your asses, so it might as well be me!   

Experience tells me that the kind of person who is willing to live in a state of anarchy is the kind of person that makes for a hard target.

Maybe there was some confusion here; I'm not suggesting any kind of centralized monopoly make and enforce laws.

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

[QuantumMechanic]

Government is force at it's core, there is no way around this.

All law enforcement, including property rights enforcement, is force at its core.  Is law bad because of this, too?

The problem is how law is made today, not that it is made in the first place.  We need systems that actually respond to market demand, and have a at least a modicum of efficiency and accessibility.

[MoonShadow]

Government is force at it's core, there is no way around this.

All law enforcement, including property rights enforcement, is force at its core.  Is law bad because of this, too?

I would say no, but some would disagree.  That said, the "law" as we know it is not written to restrain the just, but the unjust.  The just understand the "law" intuitively, and don't need it written down.  Any law or regulation that restricts the just from their proper actions, is a false law that deserves to be ignored.

Just don't be confused about the morality of what you advocate. 

The problem is how law is made today, not that it is made in the first place.  We need systems that actually respond to market demand, and have a at least a modicum of efficiency and accessibility.

Yes we do.  The most effective way of doing what you say above is to remove the regulations currently in play altogether.

[QuantumMechanic]

Experience tells me that the kind of person who is willing to live in a state of anarchy is the kind of person that makes for a hard target.

Willing?  As if everyone would have a choice?  Do you expect all the grannies that don't to be packing heat?

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

I apologize if I was unclear, then.  I'm suggesting a polycentric legal order.

[QuantumMechanic]

I would say no, but some would disagree.  That said, the "law" as we know it is not written to restrain the just, but the unjust.  The just understand the "law" intuitively, and don't need it written down.  Any law or regulation that restricts the just from their proper actions, is a false law that deserves to be ignored.

I agree, mostly.  There are many areas of law, however, that do seem to require a degree of complexity.

Just don't be confused about the morality of what you advocate.

I smell bullshit.  Just a way of using guilt to control people.  The same way religion uses fear.  OTOH, a nice way of getting people to adopt a common set of values...

Anyway, you need to distinguish between legitimate force and illegitimate force.  And how do you do this in an unambiguous way?  The best we can do, I think, is allow the law to develop in a way that is responsive to market demand.

Yes we do.  The most effective way of doing what you say above is to remove the regulations currently in play altogether.

I'm well aware of the problem of regulatory capture and the overproduction of law, so I agree to a large extent.  On the other hand, ceasing the production of law altogether is not the solution to the problem.

[FreeMoney]

Without the state, who forces a corporation, or an individual for that matter, to clean up its or his messes?

You'd need a sufficiently incorruptible system for law-making, along with a sufficiently powerful and incorruptible system for enforcing the law.

I don't need any of that imaginary stuff.

Do you need any recourse against some jerk or group of jerks making harmful messes in your vicinity?

That is a need I have now. There is none to buy when the gang is millions strong and supported unthinkingly by most others. I simply can't be scared by a gang that doesn't even exist yet that will be orders of magnitude smaller than the one I dodge every day.

[MoonShadow]

Experience tells me that the kind of person who is willing to live in a state of anarchy is the kind of person that makes for a hard target.

Willing?  As if everyone would have a choice?  Do you expect all the grannies that don't to be packing heat?

No.  I expect that the anarchist poster that you were responding to in that post, and whom you implied that you would rob under such a state of anarchy, to be packing heat.  For that matter, I would expect him to be packing heat now.  Granny would be the soft target in this context.

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

I apologize if I was unclear, then.  I'm suggesting a polycentric legal order.

Would a return something like the British Common Law of generations past qualify?  Wherein the law is 'discovered' by judges over long periods of time?  Or are you thinking more of a 'phyle' system as described in The Diamond Age?

[QuantumMechanic]

That is a need I have now. There is none to buy when the gang is millions strong and supported unthinkingly by most others. I simply can't be scared by a gang that doesn't even exist yet that will be orders of magnitude smaller than the one I dodge every day.

If you want to convince people that a well-functioning stateless society is possible, you'll have to address how the services monopolized by "the state" today could be sufficiently provided - including courts and law enforcement.  Although today these institutions have been monopolized and now basically serve to protect the interests on an elite, they are still necessary - albeit in a much different form - for solving a host of problems faced by a society, and discerning people will not take your ideas seriously if you can't address this fact.

[MoonShadow]

I smell bullshit.  Just a way of using guilt to control people.  The same way religion uses fear.  OTOH, a nice way of getting people to adopt a common set of values...

Anyway, you need to distinguish between legitimate force and illegitimate force. 

No, I don't.  In this conversation, you're the advocate; so you need to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate use of force.  That was part of my point about the 'just versus the unjust' post.  What most people think of when we use the term "law" are things that are prohibited because they are bad, but those statutes make up only a very small percentage of those produced by government.  In nearly every case of statutes that exist to punish infractions of common sense and basic civility; those actions (or something very much like them) have been prohibited in civil societies since the dawn of civilizations.  The statutes that refer to them in modern texts of law only clarify ambiguity and define consequences.  Beyond that, everything that comes from government is unjustifiable use of force.  I contend that is a given under the premise that governments are the organized use of force.

And how do you do this in an unambiguous way?  The best we can do, I think, is allow the law to develop in a way that is responsive to market demand.

That would, indeed, be a wonderful trick.  The fly in the ointment is that is exactly what everyone else believes that whatever they advocate would accomplish.  Be they socialist or anarchists, authoritarians or libertarians, republicans or monarchists.

On the other hand, ceasing the production of law altogether is not the solution to the problem.

Why isn't it?  When the US was founded, Congress was in session for only three weeks a year, and were not paid.  If we went back to that age, when serving was an obligation instead of a career, I would wager than things might improve significantly.

[FreeMoney]

That is a need I have now. There is none to buy when the gang is millions strong and supported unthinkingly by most others. I simply can't be scared by a gang that doesn't even exist yet that will be orders of magnitude smaller than the one I dodge every day.

If you want to convince people that a well-functioning stateless society is possible, you'll have to address how the services monopolized by "the state" today could be sufficiently provided - including courts and law enforcement.  Although today these institutions have been monopolized and now basically serve to protect the interests on an elite, they are still necessary - albeit in a much different form - for solving a host of problems faced by a society, and discerning people will not take your ideas seriously if you can't address this fact.

I hope I don't have to because I can't. I don't believe law enforcement and courts and roads and welfare are problems that have ever been solved. I'm suggesting that we start trying to solve them instead of forcing people to accept non-solutions at the point of a gun.

It is no more my responsibility to solve these problems than for me to tell you what to eat. If I was a nutritionist or a cookbook author I would offer you some solutions, but I don't claim to be or want to be. Some people will do this and if others like their ideas enough they will try what they suggest.