Libertarians in La-La Land

By -
Here:

"'Smart property,' for example, refers to physical property whose ownership is registered in the blockchain and thus controlled by whoever has the private key. In other words, property rights can be cryptographically defined and self-enforced by code. The owner can sell it simply by transferring the private key to another party."

Sure Ronald! When some men with guns show up to take my land, I can show them my "cryptographically defined" property rights, and they will say, "Ooooohhhh! We didn't know you had a private key showing you own this land! Well, we'll just scurry off then."

Imagine if Native Americans had only had "cryptographically defined" property rights: the Europeans would have just sailed on back home, wouldn't they?

UPDATE: In the comments, rob has made me wonder if Bailey only meant "self-enforcing" in reference to things like a computer or automobile, that could be rendered inoperative for anyone who lacks the right cryptographic key. If so, then I take back the above: a computer that one can't run is only useful as a paperweight, and so the cryptography could be self-enforcing in that case.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell6:44 AM

    This…this…what? What is he smoking? And just when I though libertarianism could not get anymore bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rob10:00 AM

    Are non-libertarians who put their trust in things like State land registries also living in la-la land ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:07 AM

      Of course not, rob: States have men with guns who will defend the land claims found in their land registries.

      What I found silly in Bailey's piece with the idea that these software claims are "self enforcing." Look, and Anarchocapitalist defense agencies are at least a plausible way of defending property rights. A cryptographic key is not.

      Delete
    2. rob10:18 AM

      Well, he does oversell the technology a bit.

      But some feature like 'Access to property could be implemented using smartphones to unlock doors to houses, hotel rooms, or rental cars by affirming a user's digital identity as encoded in the blockchain' sounds like it might be a useful.

      Delete
    3. gcallah10:43 AM

      Update to the post, prompted by your comments.

      Delete
    4. Ken B12:53 PM

      rob has pointed out the useful part, but I do think the underlying claim is broader: that all property rights and transfers can be recorded in the blockchain, obviating the need for much law. That of course assumes everyone always agrees on who does or should own or owe what. (Aye, there's the rub!)

      Delete
  3. gcallah10:25 AM

    Yes. It's certainly can work for things that can be rendered useless without the right cryptographic key, like a car or computer, although even then, thieves may be able to find a way to hack around the security barrier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Greg Pandatshang12:09 PM

    OT I’ve certainly read libertarians/Randians argue with a straight face that, if Indians had better defined their property rights, Europeans should have sailed back home, but, come to cases, they did not define them rigorously enough, so Europeans had no ethical duty not to conquer them. This always struck me as a reductio ad absurdum.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more