A question to follow Gordon's (was: Complacency)

[Jeff Bone]

Russell Turpin wrote:

> Gordon Mohr writes:
> > Let's say we all agree this technology will exist
> > (already does exist!) and no government can
> > ban its use. What, then, is the best achievable
> > policy?

No (or minimal) gov't to create the abuses, and strict limitations on
what any minimal necessary gov't can and cannot do. Contracts,
private impartial courts and arbitrageurs, and private enforcement
mechanisms such as security forces and prisons.  Privately-owned
roads and "commons," with a strict legal framework for notifying what
rights restrictions are in effect when you enter:  if a place is
surveilled, it must make this known.  At least under such an
arrangement there are sure to be freezones;  with various gov't
agencies and interests owning all "commons," that's not a given.

jb