Just listening to what-boiled-down-to a free-market vs state "debate" on Radio 4's Today programme, where the pro-state lady (actually, I'm not sure she was pro-state, just cautious towards free markets, wisely) was saying that to have choice, the consumer needs information, otherwise the choice is pretty useless, which I agree with - it's like having an informed democratic mass. But then if you need to disseminate information in a globalised (or even national) economy, then you need global communications to achieve this. Which is, naturally, where the net steps in. But then you need to validate the information, as those in competition with each other will obviously do whatever they can to bias the information within the net's sphere, and so you start to get into nyms and then you get into reputation. So really, this all comes down to on-line reputation which, I realise as I'm writing this, is half-and-half for-and-against my earlier piece on Laws vs Communication. You can have nyms that are tied to real, identifiable people, that live somewhere, and then you can have nyms that simply establish a constant identity on-line. The first leads more naturally to physical-enforced laws, as I seemed to be arguing against (at least to an extent), whereas the second could be free of this, and allow more "internal" systems of control to be defined, assuming that the nyms are trustworthy (or, at least, just as trustworthy as our visual recognition of people in real life).
Anyway, I've thought this for years, but I really really have to get into nyms and reputation networks. (Just as I really really have to get into XUL, and cryptomaths, and yadda...)
Also, apparently Jack Straw was "shocked" over the latest Iraq suicide bombing. Maybe these politician people would be more effective if they weren't so fscking naive, and (given the current track record of suicide bombers in Iraq, say) expect stuff like this. It's not exactly the first time it's happened. Word cheapener.
Hmm, must be feeling ranty this morning.