Cyber-libertarianism: Silk Road battleground individualism vs authority
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
The author seems to think that with so many people being online that humans are evolving into something else and thus the way our society organizes itself is also due for a dramatic change. Personally I don't see things that way, instead I just see the Internet as a logical progression of our communication tools. It's existence, to me, doesn't mean anything more than it makes human's true nature more apparent.
OTOH, that was 10,000 years ago, and it takes many many generations for it to happen.
The internet has radically lowered the cost of friction of communication and coordination in all but the smallest groups - in that it shares a lot with the printing press which did much the same thing for printed material.
This can even be described formally:
> Theorem: given perfect information and zero communication cost, any reasonable decision-making method must produce a Pareto-optimal outcome (ie. one that cannot strictly be improved upon).
> Proof: suppose otherwise. This means that the decision-making method in question produced outcome X, where outcome Y would have been possible, preferable to at least one person and unpreferable to no one. By the perfect information criterion, everyone should have realized that this would have happened, and by the zero communication cost criterion everyone would have come together and agreed to produce outcome Y instead. Thus, outcome X cannot have happened.
Note that the above applies to markets, democracy, Reddit-style karma systems and any other mechanism where every individual has nonzero power (so, maybe not pure dictatorships). And the further we fall from this perfect information / zero communication cost ideal, the more all of the various social problems we are familiar with today arise.
Centralized systems tend to historically emerge in low-information environments, as otherwise it's too easy for people to come together and realize that it would be more efficient for them to cut out the middleman. The internet is inherently much more decentralized than the communication media of the 20th century, under which only a few select parties could be broadcasters and everyone else is a passive consumer. Thus, it massively broadens the solution space for methods of decision-making, allowing for the growth of mechanisms that do not rely on central authorities. This is the fundamental insight of so-called "cyber-libertarianism", and applies to governments, large corporations, schools and even families.
And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free. At the very least it costs us time - at least in the current form of the internet it's not like there's simultaneous, effortless, instant communication between every human being on Earth. Now that might change things.
But I don't think you fully made the case that the internet is fundamentally different than a "better" or more effective printing press. My point, I guess, is that maybe we approach that zero cost world, but will never reach it. And that there's a fundamental distinction between being at zero cost and being at any positive cost... so that the internet is more like a printing press rather than a zero cost communication mechanism.
You could model this with the Prisoner's Dilemma by playing it this way: in your system of perfect communication, both players can know each other's decision before they commit and both can respond to any change in the other player's position. This would lead to always choosing the mutually beneficial position. Any change to the rules would make at least one individual worse off because they would lose information. This situation requires that both players give up the freedom to conceal their decision from the other. Privacy is at odds with optimal communication.
In the move toward perfect communication, there will be changes that damage the positions and advantages of people involved in the system. It's clear that existing power differences are enhanced by rapid growth. Although perfection might not be a reachable goal, I believe there's evidence that approaching it will lead to a massive long-term benefit for everyone involved. There's no other way to overcome the mistakes we all make by being constantly misinformed.
Yes it does.
> True, in the classic version of this game there's no communication
That's why. The infinitely iterated prisoner's dillema the theorem works with just fine because there's perfect communication (or rather, the imperfection in communication drops to 1/∞), any finite prisoner's dilemma, on the other hand, relies on both parties making their decisions in secret.
> I don't know what kind of economics you're talking about.
I would recommend anything by Ronald Coase or David Friedman.
> And just because information is cheaper doesn't mean it's free.
Correct. We will never have a perfect economy of any sort. We can only get better. But that doesn't change the fact that the internet is vastly better than anything we've had before in a number of very significant ways.
Do you mean "human evolution" in the typical biological sense, like talking about our genes and our physiology? Or something broader?
I'm pretty convinced that using the Internet has somewhat (not necessarily dramatically, but somewhat) already altered how I think about the world an dhow I see it. Certainly it has altered how I behave and spend much of my time. It also has clearly altered (I'd say dramatically) how we communicate, who we communicate with, and thus also who we consider to be part of our "in-group" (I'm thinking about Peter Singer's expanding circle). That has a huge impact on our moral attitudes, even. Very central changes to what we're like. Some people (I think rightly) consider this to be an evolution, in the broad systems sense of the word.
As for actual biological evolution, I guess that's less obvious to me. But it sure doesn't seem impossible. Yes, the beginning of the Internet is in some sense a consequence of our nature, not a cause. But now that it's here, it can interact with us; it is part of our environment, and could affect our biology. This idea isn't strange to ecologists, who typically refer to it as "top-down" forcing.
So my attitude to this is that, no, the existence of the Internet doesn't only "make our true nature more apparent". Or rather, it makes our true nature apparent in the same way that the elongated shape of some flowers illustrates the nature of hummingbirds (http://www.rubythroat.org/Article860629.html). From that article: "It's obvious that a hummingbird's long narrow beak is an adaptation for feeding on long narrow flowers, but the corollary is also true: There are species of tube-shaped flowers that are adapted for being pollinated by organisms with skinny, tapered mouthparts." I want to say something similar: "Yes, there is an ecological relationship between us and the Internet, and thus the Internet reflects our natures, but it's also its own thing, a part of our environments, alongside which we should expect to evolve."
One interesting advocate of this view is the science historian George Dyson, if you're interested in exploring the idea more.
Technology is great, but people dramatically overestimate how much impact it has on social organization. Look at cities. Cities are the archetypal expression of civilization. How long have cities been built in more or less the same way? They have been recognizably modern for a century (people were coming down from Westchester to work in midtown Manhattan on electric trains 100 years ago), and have been structurally similar for hundreds if not thousands of years.
People were sitting around complaining about taxes and oligarchs during the Roman Republic 2500 years ago.
I fail to see how Silk Road was anything other than a way to buy and sell goods, something that has been done via telegraph and telephone and other communications mediums for centuries.
> For the first time in history, (a part of) cyberspace was a effectivly a independent country, effectivly a country of it's own, not bound by any lawmakers whatsoever.
It wasn't anything of the sort. All of the costs and benefits of Silk Road were externalized to the offline world. It was less like an "independent country" than even say Hacker News, where the online interaction is valuable on its own merits. Silk Road was in contrast not valuable on its own merits, but just a way to exchange things of value in the real world (drugs and money).
More to the point, while I don't agree that drug laws are a good idea, I can see what motivated the legislation. Drug use isn't cost-free. It's not just high-functioning professionals using a little pot on the weekends. It is that, but it's also addicted pregnant women and mothers injuring their babies. It's addicted fathers unable to provide for their families. It's rural communities ripped apart by addiction.
The fact that the cost of the drug war may be worse than the costs of drug use does not mean that there are no costs to drug use. You can't accidentally step on a used syringe on a city street and fail to see what might motivate people to outlaw the use of drugs.
That's where the "independent country" analogy totally falls down. A country must deal with the ramifications of its policies, good and bad. Texas chooses to let oil and chemical companies operate relatively freely within its borders, and it enjoys the economic benefits of that and suffers the environmental and health consequences of that. But on Silk Road, all of the costs of those illegal products sold on the site were not felt internally. They were externalized to the real world. It's easy to construct a utopia when all of the consequences happen elsewhere.
Cities are still built more or less the same, but the internet has inarguably enabled more people to work in the cities, by making remote work a possibility. Yes, people have commuted to work for years. But how long have there also been people who did not commute, yet still called those who commute their colleagues?
The internet has defently been a big step in larger(and higher quality) collaborations, so it makes sense it would radically change how the world looks.
Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there.
The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it.
On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.
That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement?
"King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us.
So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
Why?
On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement.
Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
What? Mackerel? "Streaming mindlessly through the ocean"?
Argument-from-assways-understanding-of-evolution is the new argument from authority, it seems
> Silk Road and its like must not only be defeated, they must be crushed out of existence and deter anyone from attempting anything similar.
I'm hoping this is satire
Edit: Apparently this is not the opinion of the author. From the comments:
Just to be clear, the sentence you're quoting is not my belief. It's my description of the obvious [?] strategic imperative from the viewpoint of centralist forces should they feel a threat from emerging individualist forces.
Don't call it "Cyber-libertarianism" when it's only "cyber-drug-dealing".
I'm not saying libertarianism has the same flaw (though personally I think it's a recipe for neo-feudalism) but it does rather complicate the idea of a strict definition for a political group.
Also, please don't follow the Wikipedia link motif. It's extremely trite. If you have a point to make, please use your own words. As you start typing, you may even get a chance to re-examine your own thoughts (I always do).
I support neither drugs, libertarianism nor the Silk Road, but I don't like to see people judging who can or can't be a libertarian based on their own moral preconceptions. The only thing that matters in the definition is how much the individual in question has furthered the goal of more liberty.
I am judging him according to the same principles he said to defend, since he acted exactly like someone who didn't care about them, and was only interested in his personal monetary benefit - even if that meant torturing and murdering others.
Unless you postulate that "He was defending the Liberty of people to say one thing and do the other, regardless of any laws". Then I would have to agree with you.
In reality the government took down a large criminal enterprise headed by an individual who seems to have been engaged in other criminal activity (hiring contract killers).
Where drugs are concerned, hell yes we want regulation and bureaucracy. I want to buy from a store (maybe even a pharmacist) who sells products from a well known, traceable and accountable chemical/pharmaceutical company. I want guarantees from the manufacturer that any contaminants are known, non-toxic and biologically inert. I want someone to sue if it's not the case.
I don't buy alcohol from some forum member with half a dozen good reviews, who claims there's no methanol in his moonshine. I buy it from a store that's well run and well regulated.
Edit: tl;dr - SR, to me, is not even close to a good model for legalised drug sales.
I don't want to get into this, suffice to say I disagree.
It is not a matter of opinion or a political talking point, it is a statement of fact; all of those guarantees and checks can be facilitated by a private third party.
The "probably better" part is at least up for debate but the simple truth of the statement that private third parties provide facilities as described is simply factual.
Better/more efficient is also up for argument, but the main statement is not simply true. Sorry.
Edit- by "not simply true" I mean up for debate and open to argument, not "false"
Of course some of this would be mitigated by removing the unnecessary anonymity factor from a legal silk road. I also like the idea of going to a shop and buying recognised brands of chemicals from well known companies. Total normalisation of the drug trade rather than sketchy, rep base forums.
"Hullo pharmacist, I'd like a quarter gram of DiPT crystal please" "Certainly sir. Now you're not going to be mixing that with MDMA or other serotonergica are you? Nasty interactions I'm afraid. That'll be £12"
You can argue on top of that a paramilitary organisation must exist so that such findings have any real world impact. Once again though that was not in the content of the original statement, and you might awkwardly find yourself supporting people trying to give teeth to what they believe to be extremely important things in various other ways you may not immediately see the parity with, but nonetheless spring from the exact same premise of implicitly desirable violent deterrence.
For example, engaging the services of a professional killer to prevent a large number of customers who have trusted you and your business from being kidnapped and held in rape cages for an extended period of time.
Private third party is good, especially if you are the one who pays for the assignment. It accidentally delivers what suits you better, who would have thought?
Frankly, I do think they can be better than government alternatives, but I acknowledge it's open for debate, rather than the simple fact that they actually exist and operate.
Keep in mind the government alternative in the scenario you're talking about is the SEC, and perhaps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who were actually involved in the disaster and several narratives exist in which they directly caused the disaster. The 2008 GFC as evidence of market regulation being essential is no knock-out punch, in fact it makes a pretty good point in a set of arguments as to why the inverse is true.
Too big to fail, the government and fed response to the crisis, the government regulations which contributed to the fiasco in the first place, and the half assed regulation that served neither a free market nor a centrally planned economy that has been par for the course both before, during and after the crisis are good cases in point.