[ethbro]

tptacek's argument, as I understand it, is that evidence collection is the beginning of the chain that allows enforcing laws.

Not being able to collect evidence precludes legal enforcement, which precludes laws, which precludes the existence of a state in the modern definition. Which is the same line of reasoning that most of the "pro-legally breakable encryption" follow, even if they don't carry it out to conclusion explicitly.

I think it's fair to say a state in which everyone uses strong encryption (that cannot be penetrated by the state in any circumstance) in every digital facet of their lives does look very different from the one we currently have (at least in technologically advanced states).

[woodman]

> ...the beginning of the chain that allows enforcing laws.

Years ago I wrote software for supply chain loss prevention, every so often there would be a crisis (like a hijacking) that put the department into investigation mode - where there was no room for long term strategic thought. But the course was always corrected when the department director would remind everybody that the job was "loss prevention" and not "loss apprehension". So while criminal investigation is currently a big part of law enforcement, it isn't the primary objective. If that concept sounds strange, check out Bruce Schneier's work.

> ...which precludes the existence of a state in the modern definition.

Is that true, have we redefined the state to only include governments with laws? What do we call the entities formerly known as states that no longer fit the new definition? I wonder how long until we redefine law. I'm really hoping that when you say "modern definition" you actually mean "the definition Jay Leno would get while grabbing people off the street who previously gave the matter no thought".

I do agree with your point thought, I think that those who are predicting catastrophe are more concerned with maintaining the status quo - and when they say the world will end, they mean their estimate of the way the world works. The mental crisis is so great for some that they will craft incredibly convoluted justification, and may go so far was to start redefining words :)

[ethbro]

> Is that true, have we redefined the state to only include governments with laws?

Honestly curious, how else would you or anyone define it? And are we talking philosophical or real world examples?

I'm sure there must be others, I just can't think of any offhand.

[woodman]

> ...how else would you or anyone define it?

A geographic location where there exists a monopoly on violence. For example: the USG gets to decide who is allowed to kill who and under what circumstances, exclusively, for a specific location. That monopoly can be made clear through laws, but it isn't necessary - consider monarchies with no legislative bodies. Also consider the fact that laws cannot be established without a monopoly on violence, which a lot of people seem to get confused about - thinking the authority over violence is somehow derived from law...

> And are we talking philosophical or real world examples?

I'm really tempted to launch into a rant about cognitive dissonance here, but I'll just save time and say that is a distinction without a difference. As far as examples, like I said, pick any monarchy without a legislative body - Native American history has plenty of that.

[ethbro]

To me, the difference between philosophical positions and ones which can survive the tests of the real world are pretty important. But I suppose that's my opinion as an engineer. I've studied a lot of philosophy that's logically self-coherent but completely impractical to let anywhere near physical matter.

I would say that "a geographic location where there exists a monopoly on violence (such as a monarchy without legislature)" nonetheless has implicit laws that guide its hand. And by which it is judged! Indeed, transgressing unwritten social contracts has led to the downfall of most monarchies throughout history. Or to put it another way, co-opted power structures are necessary for the governance of any sufficiently large group, above and beyond sheer force. And power-structures require some sort of bargaining and negotiation even if it's rather one-sided.

Laws as instruments to communicate expectations are what makes scalable organization possible past a certain point, whether they're explicit or implicit.

That's why you don't see any long-lived civilizations with true violent anarchy as a form of government.

[woodman]

> ...difference between philosophical positions and...

Philosophy is a pretty huge domain, where one end of the spectrum is navel gazing Platonic forms and the other is the propositional logic that informs compiler design. It sounds like you describing the trap that medieval scholars fell into, where they would recursively construct syllogisms until they found themselves talking about how many angles could dance on the head of a pin. This is what happens when you fail to check your premise, you end up with a logically consistent delusion. So the "self-coherent but completely impractical" philosophy you've condemned is just a condemnation of poor logic - which doesn't do your utilitarian argument much good.

As far as the the rest, you've now changed the topic from "what defines a state" to "what defines a well judged, scalable, long-lived civilization".

> ...anarchy as a form of government...

One of those words doesn't mean what you think it means :)