This Essay is CopyLeft This is the revised version of something I posted to the main list a few days ago. Comments, criticism, etc., still most welcome. Rebecca Crowley selene@blegga.cac.washington.edu rcrowley@zso.dec.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- I saw the following posted to alt.cyberpunk last week and thought I might put together something about PPL/anarcho-capitalism. If nothing else, writing it might help me get some of these ideas (which are comparatively new to me -- haven't been reading this list long, and am slowly working my way through the reading list) clear in my mind. So here's what the following essay is semi-officially intended for: > Articles can be about anything... Suggestions: cyberpunkism, futurism, >dynamic and alternative thinking, philosophy, creative arts, video/sound >generation, security, etc. It doesn't matter if it is fictional, technical, >political, persuasive, narrative, emotional, or anything else. And here's the essay. Comments, criticism (hopefully of the constructive variety -- tell me *how* it's broken, not just that it is), suggestions not only welcome, but I'm practically begging. Deadline is Jan. 15. -------------------------------------------------------------------- MULTI-NATIONALS AS THE NEW WORLD ORDER It is a common theme of cyberpunk that multi-national corporations of the future will have a great deal of power, and the potential for abuse that that implies. Governments, now, and increasingly so in the future, are expected to have little ability to stop a corporation from doing pretty much whatever it thinks would be good for business. In William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, one of these corporations is a manifestation of an inbred family, bent by and on a mysterious agenda. Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_ portrays a kindler, gentler, more PC corporate community, but one which encroaches upon the minds and souls of its employees -- associates -- in a manner few would appreciate today. The corporation as an entity whose demands cannot safely be refused pervades cyberpunk; our hero is usually a pawn in power struggles between or within multi-nationals which fail to even pay lip service to the ideals of liberty and freedom. Yet, in the face of these, do we see members of the e-community today working to limit the power of corporations, to reinstate the supremacy of national governments? Not often. Reaction varies from resigned acceptance, to, well, to those who subscribe to anarcho-capitalism, favoring the abolition of all governments, returning us, not to a Hobbesian state of nature, but rather to a world in which everything, including, law enforcement and the production of law, is within the purview of individuals, and corporations. WHAT DO YOU MEAN, NO GOVERNMENT? It would be a mistake to assume that no organizations exist in this future to handle that which we typically consider the province of a sovereign or national government: national defense, law production (legislation), law enforcement, the production and control of currency, collection of monies for its continued support (taxation). The difference is not in the presence or absence of such activities, and organizations to carry them out: it is whether these activities involve legitimized coercion. That is, if I decide I don't want to participate in the national defense, if I decide I think a law is stupid, if I want to make and use my own currency, if I want to refuse to pay taxes, what happens to me? Under anarcho-capitalism, it is not ok to use force to _make_ me fight for my country, obey a law, or pay taxes. How, you might well ask, could a government exist that could not require cooperation of its citizens? The answer? Run it like a business: your products are law and order, a stable currency, etc. DID YOU SIGN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT? Most of us are familiar with the idea of the "social contract", a philosophical device used to explain how we went from a Hobbesian state of nature, the war of all against all, where we retained all our rights to do pretty much whatever we wanted, subject only to our fears of what was liable to happen if we did, to a state where the right to exercise force in defence of ourselves, our property, and our rights is limited by a sovereign authority, which has agreed, under this "contract" to guarantee our safety, our property, and certain of those rights. I didn't sign that "contract" -- neither did you, or anyone else. As a convenient rhetorical construct, it is useful. As a description of reality, it is suspect, at best. What if, instead, we each wrote our own "contract" with the "government", or whoever we wanted to guarantee our safety, our property, and some set of rights? What if we could negotiate the fee, our "taxes", at some regular interval, able to bargain for additional -- or fewer -- guarantees, in exchange for higher -- or lower -- "taxes"? What if, further, we could write into that contract what set of rights we expected for ourselves, and what set of rights we recognized others as having, and what acts against others we believed wrong and, if committed by us against others, what fine or punishment we were willing to accept and further, what remuneration we expected if certain acts were committed against us? What if you could write and sign your own social contract? THE INSURANCE COMPANY AS PROTECTION RACKET Who would be willing to sign such a contract to protect me, my property, and my rights? Well, who is currently willing to sign a contract to keep me healthy? Who is currently willing to sign a contract to keep my vehicle or residence in a certain condition? Who is willing to sign a contract to protect my existence? Insurance companies, of course: the anarcho-capitalist model for the law producers and enforcers of the future. What can we expect, based on this analogy? A competing group of companies, offering an array of services, at widely varying prices, with varying degrees of respectability. Some may decline your business -- they may consider you a bad risk if you choose to carry a gun, have an abrasive personality, or live next door to a serial murderer. More likely, they'll charge you an outrageus premium with an insanely high deductible and hope you go across the street to that new company, looking to make a name for itself. Some may resemble HMO's, having their own array of professionals you must see if you are to be covered. You have to call their bodyguards, their detectives, their lawyers for contract negotiation. . . Others may allow you to use freelancers in these capacities, offering you a lump sum compensation when your rights have been abrogated. And of course, different companies guarantee different rights. If you want to carry a gun, don't be too surprised at fairly lax fines for someone pointing one at you. Let's say Grannie signs on with Acme -- they don't offer coverage to customers who carry guns and promise stiff retribution/high fines (or, more specifically, they promise Grannie will collect a certain amount of money, whether from the company, or the nogoodnik) for those who point guns at their customers. Annie O. signs up with Perennial. They encourage their customers to arm themselves, and are fairly underwhelmed by customers who can't take care of small stuff on their own. Annie signed up with them to take care of any major difficulties she might get into in case the Hole in the Wall Gang takes a disliking to her. Grannie runs a cart over Annie's toe at the grocery store and, when confronted, starts cussing at Annie, who gets a little peeved, and waves her gun around irresponsibly to add a little emphasis to her demand for an apology. What happens? Annie, by her lights, did no wrong. Perennial is inclined to agree. But Acme has a contract to uphold. Which "law" takes precedence? Acme and Perennial, just like Acme Auto and Perennial Auto would today, get to sit down and talk about it for a while. Eventually, of course, Acme will pay Grannie the list amount of money, and probably suggest that she not be so nasty next time. They may up her premiums. Perennial will likely have a chat with Annie about responsible use of firearms, may fine her if they have a clause to that effect, and may raise her premiums. And after Acme and Perennial have to do this a few times, they'll likely work out an agreement as to how to handle disputes of this nature. In this future, as right now, if Annie and Grannie had been a bit nicer and worked it out between themselves, they could both have saved a lot of money, and hassle. WHO PRINTS THE MONEY? Most of us are accustomed to "fiat" money: paper printed by the government, backed by nothing but its good will (and guns). It wasn't always like that. It doesn't always have to be like that. Barter works about the same in every currency system: trading labor is still common now. If I help you install a new piece of software, maybe you cook me dinner in exchange. In anything but pairwise arrangements, however, this falls apart fast. "Valuta" can work, too, within most economic systems. Any time something small, and relatively valuable to nearly everyone within the group trying to do business becomes available to individual citizens, it can be used as a method of payment. In some science-fiction novels, "hot ram" is used in this way, as are drugs (in the here and now!). The earliest use of the term "currency" dates to the American colonies, when it was used to refer to paper and metal monies, tobacco in Virginia, sugar in the West Indies and even hemp. One need only watch a movie about WWII to be reminded of a few other things used as currency: chocolate, cigarettes, pantyhose. Cashier's checks, money orders on a bank are backed largely by the issuers good will -- similarly with credit cards. Any bank could establish a group of commodities (gold, wheat, futures in nearly anything, pig what's-its, you name it) that it would set equal to some unit of currency, maintain some cache of those commodities, and start issuing paper units of that currency. They could do it now, and did it right up until the end of the Civil War, when the federal government passed a series of laws that forced state bank notes out of existence, leading to the current inflexible money supply. In the extreme case, currency could be a note backed by an individual. Sound improbable? Not to a farmer in New England last year who found himself unable to borrow money from any bank to buy seed for his next crop. He raised the money another way, by selling, at a 10% discount, coupons against his next crop. I KNOW THE SOVIETS AREN'T A THREAT ANYMORE, BUT. . . What about a national defense? That's a really good question. In fact, a spectacularly good question, to which no one I've read yet has a very good answer. Insurers for protection companies may keep a stash of nukes for last ditch efforts -- but what keeps these guys from establishing themselves as a de facto government? Of course, you could have several of them, in which case the same argument that kept us alive (mutually assured destruction) should come into play. Maybe, if you were really worried about it, you could try buying a nuke or three of your own -- a la Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned". But there is no question: it's a problem. UH, WHAT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT? Specifically, how on earth to get a handle on air/water/name-it pollution? I claim a right to clean air, get my insurance company to recognize it, they sue the factory's insurance company to recognize it, maybe it stops, maybe I get some compensation, maybe they buy up all the land for x miles around. What if it's everybody's cars? No company is going to solve that with suits and expect to stay in business -- the premiums would be insane. This has even less of an answer than the question of national defense. NO SOCIAL PROGRAMS, HUNH? You guessed right. But. You can always give to charity -- there's nothing standing in your way. You can buy pension plans, disability insurance, all the rest -- and remember, you get to decide what you want, and you don't have to pay taxes for the rest. Nobody is going to make you. No public government run schools. But there may be "free" schooling. Companies need educated employees now, and are finding they have to teach them. Some of those companies are, even now, putting money into the school system, or starting schools of their own, to train a worker pool the government is failing to provide. It is not obvious that the situation will be worse under this system than it is right now. The past saw schools funded by groups of parents who built a school and hired a teacher -- voluntarily, locally, on their own initiative. Parochial schools still exist. More and more parents find themselves disgusted with the current school system and "opt out" -- some for private schools, some for homeschooling. Current voucher system proposals are an early device to try to avoid paying for schooling twice -- in taxes, and in tuition for a decent school, when the government run one isn't what you want. IS THIS FOR REAL? I'm glad you didn't ask if I was serious about this. I find this set of ideas fascinating -- and not a little scary. The people who are thinking about this kind of future are not necessarily all that strange, though. They want freedom, and liberty -- and the ability to decide what their life will be like, without coercion from others. They may care about these things more than you, but few would maintain that freedom to make of one's life what one will is an unworthy goal. Furthermore, many of these people believe that national governments are increasingly reactionary, impeding technological progress, and the spread of new ideas. Some of these new ideas that interest them -- everything from life extension, "smart drugs", cryonics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, digital cash, artificial life, cryptography, free communities (e- and otherwise) -- are fascinating in their own right, particularly to present-day denizens of cyberspace. Interested in learning a little more about what a world might be like under this (non)system of (non) government? You might try reading Vernor Vinge's short story "The Ungoverned" and novel _Marooned in Realtime_. For a short introduction to the ideas behind anarcho-capitalism and private law, try _The Machinery of Freedom_ by David Friedman, or _The Enterprise of Law_ by Bruce Benson. Rebecca Crowley selene@blegga.cac.washington.edu rcrowley@zso.dec.com "Curiosity never killed anything except a few hours."