Re: Surveilance was: Transhuman fascists?

From: phil osborn (
Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 23:39:01 MDT

>From: "Zero Powers" <>>Subject: Re: Surveilance was:
>Transhuman fascists?
>Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:35:41 PST
I suggest that you check out the ISIL site. The line you're taking is
consistent with the concept of anarchocapitalism as expounded by Jarret
Wollstein, Morris and Linda Tannehill and the other leading lights of the
early modern libertarian movement. In what I'm starting to think more of as
a "contractual society," you would have to cover the provable risks your
actions created. I.e., if you want to store high explosives, much less
nukes, then the risk factor might be astronomical in the suburbs, and the
bonds or insurance premiums to match.

Thus, the insurance companies would have a major vested interest - as today
- in detecting individuals who paid a premium lower than the actual
actuarial risk they engendered. Naturally, criminals would fall into that
category rather much. The ubiquitous surveilance would be welcomed by most
people for the fact that it reduced their insurance premiums, and it would
be the insurance Dicks and assorted free-lance PIs who would police the
society, trying to catch people doing dangerous research secretly to avoid

Those people who were caught would doubtless face all kinds of penalty
clauses and vastly increased premiums until their actuarial position

"The Market for Liberty" by Morris and Linda Tannehill is still probably the
single best intro to this kind of view of a utopian future.

My own contribution, BTW, which others have doubtless invented
independently, is to consider the idea of an explicit social contract, based
on the legal, transactional incentives provided by the Web, although I
originated the idea in the late '70's. I believe that this provides the
best overall defense against the forces of tyranny, public or private.

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:02 MDT