I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name???? Would the bank begin to issue ID cards or have fingerprints on file??? I don't know if this has been discussed before but has anybody heard anything on this????
Several "universal" ID systems will probably compete for banks' business. If nothing else, banks would come up with their own form of ID.
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Theres no reason that IDs such as drivers licenses, photo insurance, credit cards with photo ID, and any other such IDs could not exist in a free society.
Also, certain regions, be they cities, towns, or neighborhoods could have mandatory indentification for their residence if safety is considered an issue for those people. People that consider photo ID too intrusive would have to option of opting out of such communities and thus the market would arrive at an optimal level of neighborhoods of areas that require photo identification.
Hey, this is a private residence man...
javier: I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name???? Would the bank begin to issue ID cards or have fingerprints on file??? I don't know if this has been discussed before but has anybody heard anything on this????
Numbered accounts reduce the problem of identify theft significantly. For confirmation of ownership of the account, there could be passwords, passphrases, biometrics, keys, and any number of other measures to prevent account theft.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
I've thought a lot about this and think that it is more than likely that people will carry some form of identification much like our drivers licenses. There are several reasons but the most important is to be able to prove who you are, specifically to banking institutions and perhaps other organizations that would require some form of identification in order to use their services. I believe that you will have several different organizations established to provide identification cards for people who so chose them. The great thing about these organizations is that they will be completely secure and completely voluntary. They might ask for finger prints, retinal scans, photographs, etc., etc. The great thing is that in a free society you will be able to chose whether or not you want identification and pick which company you want to provide it based off of their reputation for quality service and reliability. And of course those companies with the highest rankings will be the ones whose identification cards are accepted by banks and merchants.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
As I understand it, certain anonimous online banks already exist and have no need for government issued ID. eCache, for example.
I would like to start off by saying the following: when people pay me in cash, I do not care who they are. In fact, it is usually easier if that way.
If a person can not pay me in cash and expects me to accept an I.O.U. instead, that is when I need to know who he is.
javier: I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy.
Permit me to play the devil's advocate here: you are assuming banks will exist as they currently do.
You are also assuming that the banks will want to know your identification too. Is that a fair assumption? Maybe and maybe not.
Nobody knows how the banking sector would evolve. Under anarchy, a bank may not care about your identity. I think they only care about your identity mainly because the government forces people to pay tax.
I believe most people only use banks now because they have no choice. Without government coercion, we will probably see a lot more cash or anonymous transactions.
javier: Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name????
The bank could simply issue you a bank note with a date on it.
-------
I believe sincerely that under true anarchy, people will likely only do business with their neighbors. You do not always need ID cards to identify your neighbors.
Charles Anthony: Nobody knows how the banking sector would evolve. Under anarchy, a bank may not care about your identity. I think they only care about your identity mainly because the government forces people to pay tax. I believe most people only use banks now because they have no choice. Without government coercion, we will probably see a lot more cash or anonymous transactions.
Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank and would like to know the bank is doing everything they can to ensure that only the account holder has access to the money. There will probably be some financial institutions that specialize in anonymous transactions because some people might feel they need to be a little more secretive about what they do with their money.
I believe most people use banks today because of convenience. It is much easier to have your paycheck directly deposited into your checking account than driving down to the bank to cash it. It is much easier (and safer) to pay using a check or debit card than to carry around large amounts of cash. Debit cards and checks can be canceled if stolen, cash cannot. Paying bills is much easier when you can draft it out of your checking account over the internet or write them a check. If I had to pay cash for all of my bills it would be impossible since my car payment goes to California, my credit card payments go to Delaware, etc., etc. Shopping is easier with a bank because I don't have to drive 30 miles to the nearest book store to buy the new Ron Paul book. I can just order online with Amazon, something I couldn't do if I was paying cash.
Charles Anthony: The bank could simply issue you a bank note with a date on it.
And what if I lost it or it got damaged or destroyed? How do I prove to the bank that I am who I say I am? How do I get my money back?
Charles Anthony: I believe sincerely that under true anarchy, people will likely only do business with their neighbors. You do not always need ID cards to identify your neighbors.
I don't. I think everything will continue much the same way it is. Because of airplanes and instant communications, the ability to purchase something made by some tribesman in Africa over the internet, etc., etc. the global economy will continue just like it is today, except that now that there are no government regulations barring me from trading with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc., I will be able to purchase and sell goods in those countries as well. We will still have large multi-national corporations, still have large international banks, etc. we will just be free of the state and its control over our lives.
KingMonkey,
You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
Charles Anthony: KingMonkey, You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
Ah, so your point is that once we transition to a libertarian anarchist society we will stop trading with people in different parts of the world, stop traveling to various places for vacation, for business, or to visit distant friends and that we will instantaniously stop talking to people hundreds of miles away all because you believe transportation communication and shipping FLOURISH under government subsidation?!?! If anything those things are hampered under government subisation and regulations.
Transportation is held up by excessive regulatory controls and paperwork that adds millions of dollars in expense. Communications are held up because the state has assumed a monopoly over airwaves and other things needed for an efficient telecommunications system and shipping is made more difficult because you've got to pay tariffs and other fees but navigate the every widing pit of international trade agreements, getting approval from various trade agencies to ship items, taxes, surcharges, corrupt officials wanting bribes and the ever present trade sanctions of different nations. Not to mention one government might subsidize this industry making their products artificially cheaper on the internation market. If anything it is amazing that we have the things we do. You can literally ship something around the world in less than a day even with all of the red tape that shipping companies must go through. I can talk to friends in Ireland from my home in Texas even though my cell phone provider had to pay ridiculous amounts of money to the FCC for the "rights" to use those airwaves.
In an anarchist society all of these things will become much easier and true innovation and progress can really be made making trade and friendship with other peoples around the world that much easier.
Charles Anthony: You enumerated a lot of (transportation, communications, shipping) industries which flourish as a direct result of government subsidization.
In 1989, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia. Private airlines, including Air Somalia and Dallo Airlines, serve several domestic locations as well as Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Paris and London. According to a 2005 World Bank report, the "private airline business in Somalia is now thriving with more than five carriers and price wars between the companies." Mohammed Yassin Olad, owner of Daallo Airlines, has stated that the absence of government has led to both difficulties and benefits, and commented that "corruption is not a problem, because there is no government…We build the airports and we service the airports and we only fly when we are sure it's safe". A small fishing village prior to the fall of the state, Bosaso developed a lucrative import/export trade of U.S. $15 million per year out of its port during the 1990s.The population grew in eight years from 5,000 to 150,000, sustained by public services provided on a competitive basis by private enterprise, and court systems, schools and a university founded by the local community.
From wikipedia. The point of anarchy is to have society flourish. Who would support the cause if you try to convince them we are returning to a time when a humans life consisted of a 30 mile radius
I will be interesting to see what will happen to Somalia if they continue to operate without a government. If they can ever get a handle on the war lords or really US intervention in their country, a true anarchist society might really spring up. They are well along the way to the ultimate in freedom. They've just got to get the warlords and the US out.
kingmonkey: I will be interesting to see what will happen to Somalia if they continue to operate without a government. If they can ever get a handle on the war lords or really US intervention in their country, a true anarchist society might really spring up. They are well along the way to the ultimate in freedom. They've just got to get the warlords and the US out.
from what I understand the warlords are predominantly just in mogadishu leaving other areas of the country like somliland autonomous and without gov't
kingmonkey:Ah, so your point is that once we transition to a libertarian anarchist society we will stop trading with people in different parts of the world, stop traveling to various places for vacation, for business, or to visit distant friends and that we will instantaniously stop talking to people hundreds of miles away all because you believe transportation communication and shipping FLOURISH under government subsidation?!?!
kingmonkey:If anything those things are hampered under government subisation and regulations.
javier: In 1989, before the collapse of the government, the national airline had only one airplane. Now there are approximately fifteen airlines, over sixty aircraft, six international destinations, and more domestic routes in Somalia. Private airlines, including Air Somalia and Dallo Airlines, serve several domestic locations as well as Djibouti, the United Arab Emirates, Paris and London.
1) Government regulation of airline routes is not the only thing that affects the airline industry. The manufacturing of airplanes is directly subsidized by some governments, for one thing. Governments subsidize millions upon millions of other things which indirectly affect the airline industry too.
2) You may as well say: "Before 1989, I put a frog in a freezer and it went into hibernation mode. After 1989 and the collapse of the government, I put that same frog in boiling water and it died." The collapse of the Somali government is not the only thing that affected the airline industry in Somalia. The rest of the world before 1989 was not the same as it was afterwards.
------
I never understand why people bring up Somalia as a developing anarchy. When the government collapsed, did all coercive agents disappear with it?
Charles Anthony: I never understand why people bring up Somalia as a developing anarchy. When the government collapsed, did all coercive agents disappear with it?
just wanted to respond to your tag. Unlike communists, most an-caps aren't promising utopia. The goal is to get rid of legal institutionalized coersion, but there will always be criminals.
Charles Anthony has a point IMO. E.g., in transportation the State funded the construction of massive highways, making cars more viable. State activities affect and distort the market, like it or not. Would the market have done the same? Maybe, maybe not. It might be unchanged in certain regards, and wholly different in others. State capitalism is surely inferior, and many of the services provided under it might simply be provided more efficiently under anarchism. Others may not be provided until it becomes sufficiently profitable to do so (or at least until people are willing to find other noncoercive ways to provide them.) And this is reasonable.
Inquisitor, all throughout history, the push has been for trade over longer and longer distances. More often than not, governments have stifled trade, not promoted it. Under capitalism, I think that international (if that word continues to have meaning) trade will increase drastically as barriers fall.
Sure, governments definitely do contribute to impeding trade, but they also contribute to inefficiently wasting resources on projects that the market would otherwise not fund, but benefit the ruling political class nonetheless. Certain firms within certain industries are definitely favoured by government activities (and this applies without conceding that the government is offering much of any use.) Zero trade would mean even less funds for the government to expropriate. They know that much. International trade will increase under anarchism (or minarchism), when resources allow for it. And that is a crucial point to understand, and I think that is what Charles Anthony is driving at; the market as it currently is will not necessarily be the market under anarchism.
kingmonkey: Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank
Two good points but I don't think that will be the case. I would say most, but perhaps not all, banks would care about the identity of their customers if for nothing else their customers are entrusting their hard earned money to the care and safe keeping of the bank
That sounds like a good reason for the customer to be able to identify the bank, not the other way around! There's no reason for banks ever to want to identify their customers - it's not good for security, it's bad for security, both for the bank and the customer; it's only good for governments. There's a whole, rather large, industry in "identity theft" which only exists because "identity" is used as a (lacklustre) substitute for proper security (what you want is a way to prove authority over the account, not identity - totally unrelated things, with different solutions)
Charles Anthony: 1) Government regulation of airline routes is not the only thing that affects the airline industry. The manufacturing of airplanes is directly subsidized by some governments, for one thing. Governments subsidize millions upon millions of other things which indirectly affect the airline industry too.
Correct, and when the market is freed of government control airline companies and airline manufactures will have to stand on their own two feet. But that wont mean we will stop flying to visit other areas of the world and other cultures. That is total nonsense.
Charles Anthony: 2) You may as well say: "Before 1989, I put a frog in a freezer and it went into hibernation mode. After 1989 and the collapse of the government, I put that same frog in boiling water and it died." The collapse of the Somali government is not the only thing that affected the airline industry in Somalia. The rest of the world before 1989 was not the same as it was afterwards.
The point is that the airline industry in Somalia is much better than it was when the state ran it. People can now travel further and more efficiently than before. Another good example is cell phone usage. Before the government collapsed no one had a phone, let alone a cell phone. Now that there is no government, no regulations, no taxes, more and more people are getting landline and cell phones as well as access to the internet (Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia). And it's cheap and getting cheaper. Instead of reverting back to prehistoric times the Somali people are advancing quicker than some African nations with "stable" governments. If the people of Somalia recognize the benefit of not having a government and can mount an offensive to finally destroy the warlords they would have their own anarcho-capitalist territory free of government coercion.
No one says it will be some magic Utopia where criminals wont reside. But dealing with armed thugs is easier than dealing with armed thugs funded by a strong centralized state.
Inquisitor: Charles Anthony has a point IMO. E.g., in transportation the State funded the construction of massive highways, making cars more viable. State activities affect and distort the market, like it or not. Would the market have done the same? Maybe, maybe not. It might be unchanged in certain regards, and wholly different in others. State capitalism is surely inferior, and many of the services provided under it might simply be provided more efficiently under anarchism. Others may not be provided until it becomes sufficiently profitable to do so (or at least until people are willing to find other noncoercive ways to provide them.) And this is reasonable.
Sure roads might not have developed until more people owned a car but roads were inevitable. No one subsidized Henry Ford when we built his factory and remember most "roads" were nothing more than dirty ruts carved out by horse drawn buggies. People began demanding roads and the state built them. Not the best solution but it was done. As more people bought cars eventually toll roads would be been put in to handle the traffic (and generate lots of money). The reason I think a more free market solution didn't arise is because the US government was given the power to build and maintain post roads which, because by nature the state does this, expanded that meaning to mean roads for general transportation. However, the shear volume of cars that were being produced ensured that paved roads would have been constructed sooner rather than later.
Paul: That sounds like a good reason for the customer to be able to identify the bank, not the other way around! There's no reason for banks ever to want to identify their customers - it's not good for security, it's bad for security, both for the bank and the customer; it's only good for governments. There's a whole, rather large, industry in "identity theft" which only exists because "identity" is used as a (lacklustre) substitute for proper security (what you want is a way to prove authority over the account, not identity - totally unrelated things, with different solutions)
Why would a bank not want to identify their customers? That is what customers want! Do you want someone to just walk up to the teller and say, "Yes ma'am. My name is Paul and I'd like to close out my account." So in your world where the bank doesn't verify that the person closing out the account and taking the money is actually you the bank has just handed all of your money over to someone else. That would be a bad thing, no? A good bank who values their customers and acts to ensure that their customers money is safe will demand some type of identification before they just start handing money to people. Just because I say I'm someone doesn't mean I am. In your world where banks don't ask for identification I could walk into a bank and say I'm Donald Trump and I want $500,000 from my account. And because of your world of no identification checks I would steal $500,000 of Donald Trumps money.
Also, how do you prove authority over an account if you can't prove who you are? The banks means of identifying you could be a finger print scan or perhaps a photo they have taken of you or maybe a retina scan. Anything the bank feels they need to ensure your money stays safe while the bank holds on to it and you agree to give. In order to prove authority over something the person to whom you are trying to prove something must first know who you are.
So if you would, please, explain how you prove authority over something. Because to me you've got to prove who you are before anyone will accept whatever authority you claim to have.
kingmonkey: Why would a bank not want to identify their customers? That is what customers want!
Why would a bank not want to identify their customers? That is what customers want!
How do you know what people "want"? If you ask them, most will tell you they "want" pretty much whatever they have now, because they can't be bothered really thinking about what could change. And most of the rest will "want" something completely nutty - like socialism.
kingmonkey: Do you want someone to just walk up to the teller and say, "Yes ma'am. My name is Paul and I'd like to close out my account." So in your world where the bank doesn't verify that the person closing out the account and taking the money is actually you the bank has just handed all of your money over to someone else. That would be a bad thing, no?
Do you want someone to just walk up to the teller and say, "Yes ma'am. My name is Paul and I'd like to close out my account." So in your world where the bank doesn't verify that the person closing out the account and taking the money is actually you the bank has just handed all of your money over to someone else. That would be a bad thing, no?
It would, yes; and that's just what happens when you confuse identity with authority - that's what identity theft is all about: walking into the bank and saying "my name is kingmonkey - see, it says so right here on this card! - please empty my account", and the bank will do it, because the bank confuses the name on the card with authority over the account. That's exactly what I don't want.
kingmonkey: In your world where banks don't ask for identification I could walk into a bank and say I'm Donald Trump and I want $500,000 from my account. And because of your world of no identification checks I would steal $500,000 of Donald Trumps money.
In your world where banks don't ask for identification I could walk into a bank and say I'm Donald Trump and I want $500,000 from my account. And because of your world of no identification checks I would steal $500,000 of Donald Trumps money.
No you couldn't, because the bank wouldn't care if you were Donald Trump - for all I know, your real name might be "Donald Trump" - there are probably hundreds of "Donald Trump"s in the world. I know of least five other people who same name as me within a hundred miles of where I live (one of them's even related)
kingmonkey: Also, how do you prove authority over an account if you can't prove who you are? The banks means of identifying you could be a finger print scan or perhaps a photo they have taken of you or maybe a retina scan.
Also, how do you prove authority over an account if you can't prove who you are? The banks means of identifying you could be a finger print scan or perhaps a photo they have taken of you or maybe a retina scan.
A simple example: how do you log in to this site? Did you need to provide ID when you signed up? Do you need submit finger prints and retinal scans to log back in? Does the LvMI even know your name - or care?
Paul: How do you know what people "want"? If you ask them, most will tell you they "want" pretty much whatever they have now, because they can't be bothered really thinking about what could change. And most of the rest will "want" something completely nutty - like socialism.
Agreed.
Paul: It would, yes; and that's just what happens when you confuse identity with authority - that's what identity theft is all about: walking into the bank and saying "my name is kingmonkey - see, it says so right here on this card! - please empty my account", and the bank will do it, because the bank confuses the name on the card with authority over the account. That's exactly what I don't want.
There are other ways of providing identification other than a card.
Paul: No you couldn't, because the bank wouldn't care if you were Donald Trump - for all I know, your real name might be "Donald Trump" - there are probably hundreds of "Donald Trump"s in the world. I know of least five other people who same name as me within a hundred miles of where I live (one of them's even related)
Your point being? If banks don't require you to prove who you are then why does matter how many Pauls there are?
Paul: A simple example: how do you log in to this site? Did you need to provide ID when you signed up? Do you need submit finger prints and retinal scans to log back in? Does the LvMI even know your name - or care?
Passwords can be stolen too Paul. And I'm not entrusting the LvMI with thousands of dollars or personal information either. There is a huge difference between a website with a message board and a bank with my life savings.
This topic made me think of the bank scene in the Da Vinci Code movie.
I have a feeling sci-fi stuff like that would start being implemented in banks.
javier: I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name????
I was thinking this afternoon mainly about banking under anarchy. Say I start an account with a bank,but with no gov't ID's, what would prevent others from withdrawing in my name????
Don't you have an ATM card? You think the government printed it?
Peace
Where is the problem?
Once you go to a bank and open an account, you and the bank know who you are at that very moment. Now a piece of paper stating that the bank knows you and you know the bank could be given to you to identify yourself. This has been done for hundreds of years.
nother, even better approach is to use number accounts. You do not need govt to identify yourself. It is the other way around, if I had a bunch of gold I would want to make sure the bank identifies itself and ensures I can trust it with my deposit.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag: Where is the problem? Once you go to a bank and open an account, you and the bank know who you are at that very moment. Now a piece of paper stating that the bank knows you and you know the bank could be given to you to identify yourself. This has been done for hundreds of years. nother, even better approach is to use number accounts. You do not need govt to identify yourself. It is the other way around, if I had a bunch of gold I would want to make sure the bank identifies itself and ensures I can trust it with my deposit.
First: Paper can be lost and stolen. What good is a piece of paper to identify myself if someone stole it from me or I lost it or it got destroyed? And does that not become de facto identification, which appears to be something you are completely against. From my understanding an ID is anything that shows evidence that you are who you say you are. A piece of paper issued by the bank to you would be your identification for that particular bank and that particular account. In fact the dictionary definition of "identification" is "an act of identifying : the state of being identified" or "evidence of identity."
Second: We aren't talking about government identification we are talking about free markert voluntary ID's. There is no reason to not believe that in a libertarian society people would want to carry IDs for any number of reasons (such as a bank requiring one before any money can be withdrawn from a bank account to protect the account holder from theft) and private businesses spring up to provide a secure means of identifying yourself.
Third: If you are taking a bunch of gold to a bank for deposit there is a reason why you are taking it to THAT bank. It is because that bank has built up a reputation of honesty, thrift, and security. How does the bank identify itself? What does that even mean anyway? And why would a person NOT want a banking institution to verify the identities of persons withdrawing money from their accounts? Speaking for myself and no one else, I personally like the fact that the bank ask to see my ID before I withdraw cash from my account. At least I know they are attempting to create security for the money I have entrusted with them.
So there's no bank chains in anarchy?
Or do you mean I can take a cross continent trip and simply present the bank with a slip of paper and that'll verify my ownership of the bank account on the paper? That seems very insecure.
Government IDs fail at protecting Identity, I'd hope for a much stronger ID security system from a private bank or ID company.
banned: So there's no bank chains in anarchy? Or do you mean I can take a cross continent trip and simply present the bank with a slip of paper and that'll verify my ownership of the bank account on the paper? That seems very insecure. Government IDs fail at protecting Identity, I'd hope for a much stronger ID security system from a private bank or ID company.
Your bank account is numbered today. Your ATM card's magnetic strip is the account number and your PIN is your access number. Combined with possession of the ATM card itself, that is double verification of authorization.
And as its been previously pointed out, banks are trying to determine authority to access, not identification.
If you lost your credit card would you say, "I'm protected, because they can't use it with out my ID." Of course not. You would deactivate your card.
Having your account linked to your identity enables identity theft. If your account is accessed by fullfilling verification of authority, instead of proof of identity, the security of your entire idenity does not depend on the weakest link in the security of your various accounts.
kingmonkey:First: Paper can be lost and stolen. What good is a piece of paper to identify myself if someone stole it from me or I lost it or it got destroyed? And does that not become de facto identification, which appears to be something you are completely against. From my understanding an ID is anything that shows evidence that you are who you say you are. A piece of paper issued by the bank to you would be your identification for that particular bank and that particular account. In fact the dictionary definition of "identification" is "an act of identifying : the state of being identified" or "evidence of identity."
A slip of paper with a number on it is not identification, its a key.
If you open a numbered account, accessed by a password or code, the bank does not need to know a single bit of personal information in order to secure that account.
The obvious objection to that is that if someone steals the number and the code, they could use your account. But ID doesn't actually solve that dilemma. You can only prove identity in person. A credit card, even though linked to your identity, can be used by someone other than you in a variety of ways.
And if you give someone the neccesary information to determine your identity, you have given them enough information to access accounts you hold with other people.