Anonymity destroys Crypto-Anarcho-Capitalism as the criminals move in

[Pointedstick]

…In which an anarcho-capitalist decrying state violence becomes the de facto king of an online empire and ends up trying to hire an assassin to IRL murder someone who threatens it when the anonymity inherent in his society inhibits social trust to such a degree that honest commerce is rendered impossible and criminals take over.

http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/on-t ... -internet/

The libertarian hope that markets could sustain themselves through free association and choice is a chimera with a toxic sting in its tail. Without state enforcement, the secret drug markets of Tor hidden services are coming to resemble an anarchic state of nature in which self-help dominates.

Ulbricht’s carelessness brought about the early demise of Silk Road. But if he hadn’t been stupid, the marketplace would have soon collapsed under its own weight, or become the creature of larger organisations with a far greater capacity for violence. The libertarian dream of free online drug markets that can magically and peacefully regulate themselves is just that: a dream. Playing at pirates is only fun as long as the other players are kids too. The trouble is, once adults with real swords appear, it may be too late to wake up.

Read the whole article. It's fascinating.

Over time I've really fallen out with the cypherpunk/crypro-libertarian obsession with anonymity. I think it empowers those who actually do have something to hide, and the accountability that results from community visibility is a superior social institution for the creation of durable, trust-rich communities. Honest people thrive on accountability; criminals thrive on anonymity.

Ad Orientem, you'll make a monarchist conservative neo-reactionary whatever-it's-called of me yet!

[MachineGhost]

Well, it's probably more accurate to say that government and social institutions thrive on confidence and confidence is a subset of trust.  If the crypto-anarchists came up with a mechanism that always invoked a 100% level of trust based on anonmity, that would be a real game changer.

Anonmity is like guns, its for protection against tyranny/government, not non-coercive society.  We're not supposed to have a standing army -- how well did that work out?  Is the NSA even constitutional?

And the below is no different from government being a currency issuer with legal tender laws that we pay taxes for for the privilege.  Who do you trust more?  It's a mistake to take the position that coercion can never ever be legitimate.  Legitimacy can rest upon utilitarian reality rather than a moral position.

Tor’s anonymity helps criminals by making it harder for the state to identify and detain them. Yet this has an ironic side-effect: it also makes it harder for them to trust each other, because they typically can’t be sure who their interlocutors are. To make money in hidden markets, you need people to trust you, so that they will buy from you and sell to you. Having accomplished this first manoeuvre, the truly successful entrepreneurs go one step further. They become middlemen of trust, guaranteeing relations between others and taking a cut from the proceeds.

Great find, I've been looking for this for years as to who originally proposed that!

As the US sociologist Charles Tilly argued, the modern state began as a protection racket, offering its subjects protection against outsiders and each other.

[MachineGhost]

Honest people thrive on accountability; criminals thrive on anonymity.

So, we're all criminals here?  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Mark Leavy]

Honest people thrive on accountability; criminals thrive on anonymity.

So, we're all criminals here?  Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Speak for yourself

[Libertarian666]

Well, it's probably more accurate to say that government and social institutions thrive on confidence and confidence is a subset of trust.  If the crypto-anarchists came up with a mechanism that always invoked a 100% level of trust based on anonmity, that would be a real game changer.

Anonmity is like guns, its for protection against tyranny/government, not non-coercive society.  We're not supposed to have a standing army -- how well did that work out?  Is the NSA even constitutional?

And the below is no different from government being a currency issuer with legal tender laws that we pay taxes for for the privilege.  Who do you trust more?  It's a mistake to take the position that coercion can never ever be legitimate.  Legitimacy can rest upon utilitarian reality rather than a moral position.

Tor’s anonymity helps criminals by making it harder for the state to identify and detain them. Yet this has an ironic side-effect: it also makes it harder for them to trust each other, because they typically can’t be sure who their interlocutors are. To make money in hidden markets, you need people to trust you, so that they will buy from you and sell to you. Having accomplished this first manoeuvre, the truly successful entrepreneurs go one step further. They become middlemen of trust, guaranteeing relations between others and taking a cut from the proceeds.

Great find, I've been looking for this for years as to who originally proposed that!

As the US sociologist Charles Tilly argued, the modern state began as a protection racket, offering its subjects protection against outsiders and each other.

Tilly missed one entity that the state offers "protection" against. The answer is left as an exercise for the reader.