This set of techniques and tools is not and probably will never be definitive. You can\u2019t write a cryptoanarchy bible that would last forever. As society and technology evolve, so does cryptoanarchy. The need for privacy was different (perhaps none) in the early common society, different in ancient Rome, different today in the era of digital revolution, and different in the future (for example, when staying in spaceships or colonizing other space objects). Technologies that seek to detect encrypted information are also being developed. Encryption techniques that were considered secure twenty years ago are mostly unusable today, and can be broken in minutes. Asking when the cryptoanarchy will be \u201cdone\u201d is similar to asking when the Internet will be done.<\/p>\n
In addition, cryptoanarchy can disrupt any social system. It eliminates state and private courts, police and the army. If you do not know the perpetrator, you cannot try and\/or remove him (close or kill) for breaking the law or the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). Cryptoanarchy does not address the issue of a free or regulated market. The free market is actually an integral part of it. You can\u2019t regulate something that the regulator doesn\u2019t know about and can\u2019t punish someone he doesn\u2019t know.<\/p>\n
Social systems are based on rights and obligations. The only natural duties are those that are instinctive. For example, the mother\u2019s natural duty to take care of her offspring. And even that is not enforceable outside the social system. Everything else, both duties and rights, is an artificial construct that is enforced by the social system.<\/p>\n
The only \u201cright\u201d that applies universally is the right of the stronger. Both in nature (living and non-living) and in society.<\/h4>\n
Why are we obliged to pay taxes, comply with court rulings and share our private data with rulers? Stronger so decided. In this case, the stronger is a sufficient number of people (which does not necessarily mean the majority) who are able to enforce these obligations under the threat of violence. This is not only true for human communities, examples can also be found in nature. Why is the ant queen (who is actually a slave) obliged to spend her whole life conceiving new generations in a small space deep in the anthill? Because if she resisted this obligation, the ant society would punish her. Such a queen would have a shorter life than the promises of politicians after the election.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20200621152115im_\/https:\/\/www.paralelnipolis.cz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/hammer-620011_1920-300x225.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
There is no natural right to life. It was invented by human society and agreed (either voluntarily or involuntarily) to enforce it. As well as the right to personal property or a \u201cdignified life\u201d. In the wild, the antelope does not wield in front of the lion by the charter of fundamental rights and animal freedoms. It knows she has to run, it has not better option.<\/p>\n
Cryptoanarchy is a tool by which an individual can avoid pressure from society to abide by the rules and\/or respect the rights of others. Motives for this can be \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d (but the evaluation is always individual). For a person who is used to following the rules set by someone else, this may sound like dangerous behavior, but it is again just an individual assessment. Often we can evaluate such unconditional compliance with the rules over time. Large sections of the (not only) German population found the so-called Nuremberg Laws in order and it was normal to abide by them. And today it seems incomprehensible to us. In the same decade, we can also look at, for example, current market regulations, the criminalization of drug users or the crime of treason.<\/p>\n
This does not mean that the cryptoanarchist does not follow any rules and breaks all laws. Many factors play a role here, such as the question of one\u2019s own security, morality or, for example, economic profit. And while it may not seem so at first glance, most people are not interested in harming. Why in the store, when the salesman isn\u2019t looking, most (!) of us just don\u2019t stick a bottle off the shelf into a bag? It is not because of fear of the law (and punishment). It\u2019s because we have a kind of moral code encoded in us. Turning someone\u2019s property just doesn\u2019t work out for us, whether or not there\u2019s a law.<\/p>\n