>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Choate [mailto:ravage@einstein.ssz.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 1998 7:22 PM
> To: cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com
> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the
> Foregone (fwd)
>
> Forwarded message:
>
> > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:59:18 -0500
> > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)nyu.edu>
> > Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone
> (fwd)
>
> > Ah, but governments are just bunches of people. The problem with
> > government (which is just an organization) is that problematic people
> > use them to cause problems for others. That's why I'm against *having*
> > such organizations. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
>
> I'm still waiting for one of you guys to explain in detail how it works on a
> day to day basis...
It works much the same as it does today, except that there isn't a
parasitic state wasting resources on feeding a useless band of
politicians, or pointing guns at people who don't obey its whims.
> > It's about the same thing. Of course, for it to do this, it must wield
> > sufficient power to exact that retribution, which, as I've been saying
> > over and over (as you've noticed) is the problem.
>
> Well I'll tell you this. You don't have a hope in hell of getting
> anarcho-anything to work. People are not going to bust their butts simply to
> see it get yanked away by a bunch of unregulated monoploies.
Oh yeah, like they'd be much more willing to bust their butts simply to
see 50%+ of it yanked away by "regulated" (by someone else) monopolies.
You can't have malignant monopolies in an anarchy. If any monopoly
behaved in such a manner, it would be opening itself up wide for
competition. The only way malignant monopolies can survive is by the
use of political power (i.e. force) to keep down competitors or to force
patronage.
And exactly how is your paragraph related to the one you quote above it?
> > But they can only enforce laws after they have been broken. (assuming
>
> No, they can refuse to pass laws that don't infringe the basic principles of
> the society. They can pass laws that take a conservative (not in the
> political sense but in the wary manner) approach. It takes a system that has
> sufficient check's and balances that no one group or even groups acting in
> concert can take over the sytem to their good above others. It further can
> operate on certain principles that govern the manner which the sytem
> interacts with individuals.
Ok, I'm going to tell this to you one more time, in simple words of no
more than three sylables. I'll even put it in caps, so you can see it
easier:
LAWS DON'T GOVERN, PEOPLE DO.
I keep pointing this out to you, and it keeps sliding in one eyeball and
out the other. What's written on paper is *meaningless* if those in
power choose to abuse their positions.
> None of these can anarcho-anything touch upon. It assumes a priori that all
> of these social mechanisms are pointless and serve no purpose. That people
> will behave in a rational manner and that everyone is looking for equitable
> and peaceful solutions to their problems.
Anarcho-capitalists are very aware of social mechanisms. In fact, you
may have noticed that they are what we rely upon. What you've been
talking about, however, are *political* mechanisms. There's a
difference.
> > that it's a "nice" state --some states'll kill you *before* you break
> > their laws). They do not protect people, they simply punish people they
> > catch doing certain things.
>
> So, nobody is saying there aren't governments that are worse than the US.
> What's your point (or is it just hyperbole)?
It's what you missed in the above paragraphs. No government can prevent
something bad (i.e. the violation of individual rights) from happening.
No government can keep you safe. All any government can do is initiate
force after the fact, and this is *not* protection.
> > I agree, but I make no distinction between the government and the people
> > running it.
>
> Ah, that is a fatal mistake for any political system or one who studies
> them.
And why would that be? I don't see any of them words written on them
sheets of paper getting up and standing guard around *my* house. I just
see the actions of the people who are allegedly enforcing them. Their
behavior is not always correlated to what's written on their sheets of
paper.
> > The Constitution is a list of rules under which the
> > government is supposed to operate, and if it is violated, the government
> > no longer has any right to govern, and should by rights be shut down by
> > the governed.
>
> No, those who break the law should be punished. Don't confuse the issue by
> saying simply because one man is bad and caused the system to fail that
> either all men or bad (which applies to you)
I don't say that all men are bad. I simply say that not all men are
good.
Furthermore, I say that no man is good enough to rule another. This
applies to you, me, and everyone else.
> or all systems are broke (which
> also includes yours).
You're *almost* there. It means that all systems of state-governance
are broke. I propose the abolition of the state -the lack of such a
broken system.
> A society is a group of people who act in concert under some sort of
> mechanims, the result is a nation or government.
Wow, that's very nationalistic of you. Nationalism wasn't always the
way people viewed the world, you know, and society existed then.
You keep saying that the state and society are somehow synonymous. This
is simply not true --unless you're saying that if it were not for the
existance of an organization which tells other people what to do, all
human interaction would be impossible.
> Governments have no rights,
> they're not people; another serious problem with your view. Governments have
> duties, responsibilities, and obligations. It's a job.
Heh, if you've been listening, you'd have noticed that I never said that
governments *have* rights -only that they assert that they have them.
There are no group rights, only individual rights. Do you agree? If
so, then how do you resolve the contradiction which develops when you
notice that members of the state apparently have the right to do things
that non-members cannot? Specifically, the "right" to initiate force,
and the "right" to rule others? (both of which are of course non-rights,
in my view)
> > The central problem is that if the government was weak enough that it
> > *could* be shut down immediately upon its first violation of its
> > charter, it would be so weak that it could not offer a plausible
> > guarantee of retribution for Constitutionally approved crimes.
>
> You punish people not governments. You change the laws governments act under
> when the laws are found to be bad. If the act is offensive enough you forbid
> the government from even considering the issue (as in the 1st Amendment).
*Who* punishes the punishers? You fool, who do you think is going to
tell the highest enforcer (who supposedly wields sufficient power to
enforce anything) what to do?
> > Yup, but you cannot assume that the arbiters of the rules will always
> > have respect for the rules.
>
> It depends on how you write the rules and the sorts of systems you create
> for review of such situations.
*sigh* I'll say it *again*. If the rules are going to be ignored, it
doesn't _MATTER_ how they're written.
> > Rules have no power on their own --only
> > that power given to them by people who agree with them. It is therefore
> > foolish to concentrate power to enforce rules over other people --you
> > cannot reasonably expect that the arbiters of said rules will not be
> > corrupt.
>
> So, who said anything about people not being corrupt? Well, except you
> anarcho-whatever folks. Who keep trying to convince folks that crime and
> such will magicly disapear in your system of government.
No one ever said that. I'm sure crime will still exist. Robbery,
murder, etc. People go insane sometimes, some are anti-social, etc.
What we *won't* have, however, are such state-sponsored crimes like
taxation, "regulatory" taxes designed to keep competition away from
state sponsored monopolies, and, of course, that highest of all crimes,
the initiation of force on a worldwide scale.
> > This is the standard line handed to anyone who argues for the abolition
> > of government. As such, it's pretty easy to tear apart. :)
> >
> > First: You tell me that without government, I'll end up watching my
>
> No, what I'd say is that without taxes funding civil services you're going
> to watch your house burn to the slab.
Why? Why wouldn't the services which people obviously need and want
suddenly vanish if the state didn't exist? People are obviously going
to be willing to pay for services they want. You think that mail, fire
protection, etc, wouldn't exist if they weren't state monopolies? What
evidence do you have which supports this belief? It certainly runs
counter to all available evidence (i.e. in *every other* service which
isn't monopolized by the state).
> > "house burn to the slab." This implies that fire departments wouldn't
> > exist if they were not subsidized by the state. This is incorrect.
> > After all, the first fire departments in the world were not publicly
> > operated.
>
> Your right, they were a handfull of neighbors who happened to live near each
> other. That isn't the question. The question is how do you plan on handling
> the fire depts. duties in New York or Houston for example?
Read to the end of the paragraph, my dear fellow, and you will be
enlightened. You really should be a little more patient before you
shoot off your mouth.
> > In a free market, either the homeowner or the insurance
> > companies will have an incentive to support fire departments. I'm
>
> Really? How do you figure that? Why do you expect that considering the level
> of abuse in the insurance industry and the competition that drives it that
> it won't get transfered into support of the fire departments without some
> sort of outside regulation?
What's that? Someone's running outside regulation in an anarchy? Your
comment makes no sense in this context.
> And remember, many people don't have insurance.
They'll be able to buy it with the money they save in taxes and reduced
prices due to the lack of taxation at each step in the production of the
goods they purchase.
> What happens when the ABC sponsored fire dept. gets to a non-insurance
> house?
Then they put out the fire, lest it spread uncontrollably to houses
which *are* covered by ABC insurance. Then they present the homeowner
with a bill, who in turn presents the bill to his insurance company.
> Or one that's a XYZ house instead. How does the neighbor call the
> right fire station when they notice the house burning?
It is in the interest of the insurance companies (who run or finance the
fire depts.) to make it easy for people to contact a fire department.
(it saves on claims).
Of course, what would probably end up happening is that local fire
depts. would form, and be paid by insurance companies according to an
agreed upon rate. A per-fire deal, if the frequency of fires is
sufficient to support this, or a flat rate (which is nicer for the
insurance companies, since they get to minimize their expenditures this
way).
> What happens when you
> have somebody on a fixed or small income. Is your position that the paultry
> sum they can raise will be taken seriously in regards compensating either
> the insurance company or the fire dept.?
Insurance companies don't have a problem collecting lots of small fees
if they don't have to pay large ones very often.
> What about the increase in
> insurance premiums, what do you expect those to be compared to the current
> tax rates?
Significantly lower, overall, since we eliminate the middleman.
> > willing to pay the local fire department a fee to stand ready to come
> > and put out fires for me.
>
> You do it already, it's called taxes.
Yes, but I'd rather do it *without* having a gun pointed at my head. I
like to be able to choose which organization I want to give my money to
(rather than having the decision made for me by armed men).
Besides, money is fungible. For all you or I know, 100% of the money
I've paid in taxes has gone to government boondoggles.
> Yeah, reality certainly argues for civic participation and the willingness
> of neighbors to come forward wit testimony.
Perhaps the reason everyone hates each other so much these days is
because they all know, deep down, that they're being screwed over by (as
far as they can tell) everyone else. And they are, via that amazing
organization, the state.
Michael Hohensee
