Talk:Crypto-anarchism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] See also for anarcho-capitalism, but not anarchism?
Is there a reason that there is a see also for anarcho-capitalism and not anarchism? Unless this is solely an anarcho-capitalist thing, which it doesn't seem to be, I think there should just be a see also for the anarchism page. --Sam 20:47 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not too well studied in crypto-anarchism, but the article discusses the use of money within the crypto-anarchist communites. Almost all anarchist ideaologies outside of anarcho-capitalism call for the abolition of money. This might have something to do with it. Tomorrowsashes 22:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- But u'll find way too many "anarcho"-capitalists in crypto-communities...
- I do NOT agree. I actually did a research on that (I asked everyone i got in touch with for a week or so in duck's IRC-server in the I2P-network). Most people are anarchists. // b
- Anarcho-capitalism and traditional anarchism are two very different things. Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to cryptography, but crypto-anarchism seems to postulate that total liberation can be achieved solely through cryptography, which is something anarchists vehemently disagree with. Crypto-anarchism has no critical analysis of eg capitalism, the role of the state in maintaining and upholding it, religion, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc ad nauseam. -- Bk0 00:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- that is a bit like complaining you can't rebuild your transmission with a single wrench; crypto-anarchism was never intended as some sort of all encompassing worldview, but more as a tool by which individuals could trade and communicate outside the control of the state. Though naturally appealing to anarcho-capitalists, I don't think crypto-anarchism has a lot to say about broad philosophical ideas. If you find a crypto-anarchist, he (and let's face it, you know he's male) probably has a much broader range of ideas of which crypto-anarchism is merely a subset. —This unsigned comment was added by 141.154.36.3 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] "Online" philosophy
"Crypto-anarchism is an online philosophy" What exactly is an "online" philosophy? Philosophy is philosophy, right?
[edit] Crypto-anarchism & anarcho-capitalism
How can crypto-anarchism be tied to anarcho-capitalism? The two philosophies are incompatible. Anarcho-capitalism cannot work without enforcement of property rights, I am correct? Now can anyone exlplain to me how on earth they would enforce their intellectual property rights if there is no way of knowing who is stealing their intellectual property? Ok, you could enforce those rights outside the digital realm. But crypto-anarchism is a philosophy applicable to digital realm, and the digital realm only. Or you could say anarcho-capitalism only applies to non-intellectual property such as electronic money. But if intellectual property is no longer traded as property then you no longer have anarcho-capitalism. Then you have just plain anarchism. In the digital realm at least. Let's be realistic, people. I'll comment this statement out. Unless someone comes up with a less self-contradictory argument. 137.222.40.132 11:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Your argument makes sense to me, but apparently it doesn't to crypto-anarchists. I don't know how they'd enforce anything, either. On the other hand, most "traditional" anarchists would oppose the use of money. Maybe this is a distinct group. I'd never heard of it until now. Dave 18:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
- One could logically have private property rights in physical objects, but not IP rights. I'm not sure such a system woudl work, and I'm not sure if that is what the crypto-anarchists are proposing either, btu the positions "there must be enforcement of property rights" need not imply "there must be enforacable rights to IP" any more than it must imply "there must be slavery". Not all things need be property in order that some things are. DES 01:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If information cannot be property, it's hard to imagine how capitalism could ever function realistically in a modern knowledge/service economy. 137.222.40.132 11:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Frankly I find it hard to imagine any of the proposed versions of anarcho-capitalism working very well or for very long, and also hard to imagine any of them coming into being starting from our current situation. I don't find adding the idea there there are property rights in physical things and services, but not in information, making the basic idea much more implausible. DES 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If information cannot be property, it's hard to imagine how capitalism could ever function realistically in a modern knowledge/service economy. 137.222.40.132 11:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One could logically have private property rights in physical objects, but not IP rights. I'm not sure such a system woudl work, and I'm not sure if that is what the crypto-anarchists are proposing either, btu the positions "there must be enforcement of property rights" need not imply "there must be enforacable rights to IP" any more than it must imply "there must be slavery". Not all things need be property in order that some things are. DES 01:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is the commented statement; probably better to move it here than have it lurk as a comment:
- Crypto-anarchism is generally regarded to be separate from the traditional body of anarchist or libertarian socialist theory, with much closer ties to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. However, crypto-anarchism undermines the concept of intellectual property. Without private property capitalism cannot exist.
— Matt Crypto 11:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- I disageee with this comment, see above. How about:
- Crypto-anarchism is generally regarded to be separate from the traditional body of anarchist or libertarian socialist theory, with much closer ties to the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. However, crypto-anarchism undermines the concept of intellectual property. Anarcho-capitalism is generally sympathetic to enforcable proerpty rights of all sorts, and this means that the two philosophies may not be consistant. DES 01:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disageee with this comment, see above. How about:
I have another idea about that: Crypto-anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism IS compatible, in a sence. You cannot enforce any laws on intellectual property, you are right with that, and at that point the two philosophies are incompatible. However, crypto-anarchism does make it possible to create an unregulated market. Crypto-anarchy gives the anarcho-capitalists free access to that market. For example, the DMT-bank, unfortunatly now closed, made it possible to trade about anything without any regulations what so ever. That perticular DMT-market and all services connected to it was without (an-) any central leader/goverment (-arch), and it was completely capitalistic in its nature. Thus, crypto-anarchism brings us anarcho-capitalism. Also, a company cannot make use of stolen information in the same sence that an individual can use it. If a company steals code from another company, and use it in their products, there is a really large risk that their crime will be found out. That way, as long as there exist laws "in the real world" there will allways be some sort of information-market. Also consider the Ripple monetary system, a system like that is pretty much anarcho-capitalistic in its nature if you ask me. There is nothing that stops you from moving that concept into the encrypted networks to let pseudonyms trust eachother..
- I am an anarchist and I am highly _against_ this crypto-anarchism, I saw this thing as mainly a anarcho-capitalist (capitalist the worst) thing. But I like the way anarcho-capitalists have plunged their heads in the wall by contradicting themselfs... I dont like cryptography or any other philosophy which makes it harder for people to communicate openly, it is hard enough making ourself understood, besides having people communicating over crypto channels separates most members of a society from each other thus making them vulnerable for biggots, hrm authorities... just my thoughts and no cents. :) Foant 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- How does cryptography make it harder to communicate openly? Anybody wanting to communicate openly still has that option; you don't have to use cryptography just because it's available. Its availability merely adds the option of communicating in a less-open way in instances where this may be desirable, for instance when planning something that outside authorities might disrupt or interfere with if it's not concealed. *Dan T.* 16:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- First question: By requiering people to use technology. See the primitivist article for why technology sucks. Cryptography isnt used by people to evade authoroties its used by authorities... Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message come thru, simply as that...
- Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message interception-resistant. Cryptography is used along the entire history, it evolved together with communication, only the form differs. Involvement of sophisticated algorithms is only a matter of the arms race in development of computing machines. Vigenere's cipher, a pen-and-paper low-tech kind, was good enough during the medieval times. One-time pads can be realized even today, without computers too, and the only problem is that the key distribution is a bitch. It is about the adversary you are facing, and their technical resources. --Shaddack 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wasnt talking about the 1000 or 5500 years earlier, I was reffering to the time when we didnt even have written systems. That is, before ~4 000BC and all the way to 5 million years ago when the first proto-humans evolved. See humans never where like individuals who then decided to form some groups or societies because of mutual benefit, humans and even proto-humans and probably creatures before them evolved within groups, and one of those things which qualifys social animals is the fact that they communicate very much. I see a difference between the cryptographical uses of todays communication with that which was before, and still is now, which is happening right here, that is that two members or more speak and are heard by the rest which enables them aswell to make comments and improve the discoussin and conclusions. This woudlnt have been possible with usages of cryptography, now dont tell me that this can be done over encrypted channels (it can be done), sure, but you then forget the idea behind cryptography, that is to exclude others from a communication channel. Here basically noone is excluded. Foant 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. You are perfectly correct in context of face-to-face communication within more or less isolated groups. Crypto-anarchism is intended for entirely different setting, where the group participants are geographically distant, dispersed within other groups potentially hostile to the sub-group. The technology involved enables free communication within the sub-group within a designated cipherspace, while denying its content (and in some cases even the very fact the communication takes place) to all non-members. --Shaddack 05:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wasnt talking about the 1000 or 5500 years earlier, I was reffering to the time when we didnt even have written systems. That is, before ~4 000BC and all the way to 5 million years ago when the first proto-humans evolved. See humans never where like individuals who then decided to form some groups or societies because of mutual benefit, humans and even proto-humans and probably creatures before them evolved within groups, and one of those things which qualifys social animals is the fact that they communicate very much. I see a difference between the cryptographical uses of todays communication with that which was before, and still is now, which is happening right here, that is that two members or more speak and are heard by the rest which enables them aswell to make comments and improve the discoussin and conclusions. This woudlnt have been possible with usages of cryptography, now dont tell me that this can be done over encrypted channels (it can be done), sure, but you then forget the idea behind cryptography, that is to exclude others from a communication channel. Here basically noone is excluded. Foant 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- (Answer to the one above Shaddack) That is just bullshit. This kind of cryptography (crypto-anarchism style cryptography) is not used by authorities. It is used by libertarians, anarchists and so on.. Where do you get the idea that it forces people into using it? It seems absolutly absurd. -- Idiotbastard
- Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message interception-resistant. Cryptography is used along the entire history, it evolved together with communication, only the form differs. Involvement of sophisticated algorithms is only a matter of the arms race in development of computing machines. Vigenere's cipher, a pen-and-paper low-tech kind, was good enough during the medieval times. One-time pads can be realized even today, without computers too, and the only problem is that the key distribution is a bitch. It is about the adversary you are facing, and their technical resources. --Shaddack 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- First question: By requiering people to use technology. See the primitivist article for why technology sucks. Cryptography isnt used by people to evade authoroties its used by authorities... Speakers have to take extra steps to make their message come thru, simply as that...
- How does cryptography make it harder to communicate openly? Anybody wanting to communicate openly still has that option; you don't have to use cryptography just because it's available. Its availability merely adds the option of communicating in a less-open way in instances where this may be desirable, for instance when planning something that outside authorities might disrupt or interfere with if it's not concealed. *Dan T.* 16:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anarchism template not appropriate
Since—according to the discussion here—neither the anarcho-capitalists nor the traditional anarchists are willing to vouch for crypto-anarchism (for good reasons), I don't see how the current Anarchism template is appropriate. In all honesty crypto-anarchism seems to me like a fairly underdeveloped idea that a few people came up with pretty recently, instead of the rich political/social philosophy with 150 years of history that anarchism is. I vote for immediate removal of the template while retaining the See Also section which can contain whatever links are deemed useful. -- Bk0 03:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree:
- Dave 03:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC): As far as I can tell, the only thing "crypto-anarchism" has in common with either anarchism or anarcho-capitalism is the last nine letters, and possibly a very small overlap in supporters.
- Foant 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree:
- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:47, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC): I don't see what is the issue here, even infoshop follows the free software movement and the digital attack on property very closely. It is quite clear that this page should still have a template, and furthermore, that it should be developed further to explore the connections between it and anarchism. It should also be expanded beyond the simple money issue, as that is not the only aspect of crypto-anarchism. I'll be doing more research on this though.
Disagree: Those anarcho-capitalists that uses the benefits of crypto-anarchism has probably accepted that it is impossible to hinder "them" (me included) to steal intellectual property. Cope with the technological evolution -- Or go extingt/bankrupt. I think that it is allmost part of the anarchocapitalist idea to accept new stuff. For example, there is child pornography in the freenet-network, and noone can stop it. Not even all-mighty-USA. It is impossible to stop it unless you outlaw cryptography, and that is not going to happen. Anarcho-capitalists that is using the crypto-networks (I2P, TOR, IIP, and all those freeheavens) have probably realized that they just have to accept this, and that there is benefits to it too -- You can trade anonymously through all those anonymous banks (Yodel, and all the e-gold-banks)...
- I'm not sure what anon is saying here, but I gather he/she's arguing that crypto-anarchism is a sub-category of anarcho-capitalism. I'm trying to be generous to anarcho-capitalism in assuming that it is not wholly dependent upon crytography and computer technology, but I confess that I don't know enough to say that with certainty. Nevertheless, the comments in the above discussions tend to argue against what anon seems to be saying. --Bk0 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Template
The notion that the libertarian template belongs here is likewise questionable. Libertarians are like the political variant of that religious sect which gets carried away with evangelizing themselves everywhere, even to claim ownership over topics in anarchism. Anarchy by definition is hard to delineate, but it best described as a directive toward no government. Libertarianism claims to be all things to all people and hence its natural that the related template keeps popping up everywhere. I argue to use the anarchy topicbox or none at all. -SV|t 04:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Remove it. Use none at all 137.222.40.132 13:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Big-tent anarchism
The very existence of crypto-anarchism, and the fact that people are bickering inconclusively about whether it belongs under traditional anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, all of the above, or none of the above, argues for having the main anarchism article be of a "big tent" nature, defining anarchism broadly and generically instead of a particular subsect or movement of it, and hence encompassing anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-socialism, and also crypto-anarchism (whether one might regard it as capitalist, socialist, both, or neither). *Dan* 16:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Low-level, yet practical and pragmatical issues
Yodelbank.com has ceased to exist [in Jan.2006 ]. I don't know whether it was evil effort of world governments to stop anonymous money, or lack of public interest to anonymous digital cash or simply lack of real-world ca$h to run domain. Nevertheless, I suggest to remove link as I do not see any argument to believe it will appear again in feasible future.silpol 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
