Is Anonymity undesirable for society or unrealistic?Contracts shouldn't be designed to require the courts for restitution. This drives collectivism as you duly noted.
There will always be a need for dispute resolution and mediation in contracts. It is impossible to fully remove this need. Although it is certainly possible to mitigates the state’s role via private judges/arbitrators the best that can be achieved here is minimization.
In the part of my prior post which you did not quote, I explained that certain contracts can be indisputable because they are algorithmically settled. With the Knowledge Age, I expect these type of indisputable contracts to become a preponderance of the GDP[1]. My hypothesis is the
Knowledge Age changes the fundamental basis of society.
For example, I expect the
monetization of open source to foster granularity of project modules. So this means instead of contributing to for example Firefox or Linux source code, an open source developer could instead contribute to a module of source code with a much more general but limited scope of functionality (e.g. a HTML rendering engine or an image format rendering engine, i.e. the latter is a sub-module of the former module). These modules would then be funded by a license fee paid by the users of the software. The key here is micropayments, because each module would self-register itself on installation and request a micropayment from the user. The user would be shown an aggregation dialog box of all the micropayments for the all the modules in the software they want to install and use, and click to approve the payments. A huge advantage is then we can upgrade specific modules of a software, so we can customize software to our liking. For example, Mozilla assholes would no longer have the power to do
what I warned them would be egregiously unpopular with website developers. You thus see from that Mozilla fiasco that even in open source, the IRON LAW of Political Economics applies. The way
open source funding works now is that the
key developers of large projects are funded by large corporations. Thus only the core developers receive remuneration. And the synergies and network-effects are highly muted as compared to the new paradigm I describe above.
Pedophilia, rape, murder, assassination have been going on since Mesopotamia. Communications were always anonymous in the past. You want a 666 control system to try to stop what has always existed and you will get instead your nirvana of megadeath.
Anonymous internet communication doesn't make it more difficult to hunt down individuals as compared to the way it was done before the internet. There was always anonymous money and transactions in the past. Whereas, if we give the State the power to make all transactions trackable in the imminent switch over to digital currency, we will surely all die in megadeath 666.
Two separate issues here. 1) It there a social cost to adding unbreakable anonymity in monetary transactions 2) Is the cost worth the benefits.
It is true that such crimes are ancient ones. However, it is also true that the creation of a marketplace where such activities can be financed in absolute anonymity will lead to an increase in said activity.
Firstly, I philosophically do not agree that which is natural is a cost for society. I believe the antithesis is the truth, which is that statism attempts to enforce unnatural outcomes[2], which is huge cost on society because nature always wins in the end.
But more saliently, as usual is appears you don't view the issue holistically and only look at one of the vectors that the new paradigm changes. For example, parents have a responsibility to protect their children from paedophilia and the Knowledge Age will economically empower individuals so they can have more influence over their kids, i.e. not be dependent on sending their kids to public schools where they
lose some of their individuality and morals. The current statism is destroying the family unit which destroys children and makes them more vulnerable to paedophilia. Statist funded feminism[2] is causing more rape than anonymity could ever hope to. Murder rates are
26 times higher amongst blacks who have lower IQs and knowledge age skills — fact is that Knowledge Age workers do not murder. Increase in the risk of collectively funded assassination would be a great incentive to be anonymous and to not be a public figure, thus another restraint on corrupt governance and overpaid actors and sports stars which are a moral turpentine on society ("let them eat cake" or "feed them bread and circus" to keep their minds preoccupied).
Note I believe IRON LAW of Political Economics can't coexist with the
Knowledge Age, because remember
my thesis is that knowledge isn't fungible and can't be financed, thus it really can't be centralized and controlled and thus the government must eradicate the Knowledge Age if the government is to survive. In short, there is war ahead and only one side can survive. If the government wins, humanity loses.
Ask yourself this question. If everyone in the world was suddenly gifted with your current understanding of fiat, cryptocurrency, socialism and its dangers would you want anonymity in a world currency? The answer in my opinion is no.
I entirely disagree. I would still want anonymity because it provides the correct incentives for the game theory of society, as I enumerated above. Never should the game theory be based around personalities, but rather based on actual deeds which has nothing to do with identity. I view this very mathematically. Thanks for calling me out to explain my philosophy so it is available in the public record.
In such a admittedly very unrealistic scenario there would be no need for anonymity as the populace would vote to dismantle the foundations of fiat based socialism. There would be no justification for facilitating the aberrant social behavior that unbreakable anonymity helps hide.
Now obviously that is a completely unrealistic scenario. However, I believe it demonstrates why the long term solution to this problem is education and where that fails natural selection. Anonymity is a useful means to protect individuals until society progresses to the point where it can be safely set aside.
Not only unrealistic, but uniformed about the real game theory of society. Also society can't vote anonymity out of existence. Nothing can stop anonymity unless it is technologically possible for a central authority to squelch it. See below...
Internet anonymity is nothing like burying gold coins. It doesn't have to be cumbersome nor cost more (but there is a lot of programming work that needs to be done to make it so). It doesn't have to decline the velocity of money and can in fact increase the velocity which has been collapsing, by providing an outlet for the private sector to grow and interrupt without the oppression of the State.
Perhaps but this has yet to be proven. Certainly nothing that exists today meets this criteria. The state is likely to come down hard on an anonymous cryptocurrency if it starts to gain traction. That alone will increase the cost of using it.
This is the big open question. Even I am not sure how this will play out, but I will say do not entirely underestimate the power of the Knowledge Age. It is possible we can render the government's power quite impotent. For example, if the government wants to pay footsy with internet kill switches and packet filtering, we can switch to P2P mesh networks of WiFi routers and stenography. Also if the Knowledge Age is more profitable for people than the collapsing socialism which becomes draconian, then the majority of people walk away from the government (withdraw their support for its authority) and walk to anonymity and the Knowledge Age. It could be like the fall of the Berlin Wall, one day the government realizes they've lost and it falls peacefully in tidal wave action.
That is my grand hope.
