Re: This is why a free society is evil. (fwd)
____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 08:32:15 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net> Subject: Re: This is why a free society is evil. On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
Note: I really wish that people would "get" the distinction between socialism and fascism on this list.
Enlighten us then... Socialism, the management of all property and activity through a central authority, also called a 'command economy' because everything is done through the control and command of a central authority. Fascism, is the management of private property for the goals and policies of the state. Ownership of that 'private' property is contingent upon compliance and performance. The term itself comes from the Italian name for a Roman weapon which consisted of a group of reeds banded together with a axe head embedded. The point to the symbolism is that together we are stronger than apart (refering to the strength of individual reeds compared to when bundled). The distinction is simply at what point they step in and take away 'your' property.
I realize both look substantially the same from the libertarian/anarchist perspective in that they involve controlling people.
Actually, other than the issue private ownership they are nearly identical in philosophy and goals.
But they have different ideologies and reasons for controlling people,
No they don't. They ostensibly want to create a workable utopic society where everyone gets what they need. The question they are trying to answer (the question that ALL political, socialogical, and religious theory try to answer) is 'who gets to make the decision' and 'what is the range of acceptable decisions'.
and to use them interchangeably is to be WRONG slightly more than half the time.
Not if used in the context I used them in. That they both end up taking the decision making point away from the individual and move it toward a central authority. In that sense the results of the two, though their process may differ, is to create a system where a few benefit from the many.
If you want a word you can use for both types of government, plus dictatorships and feudal/aristocratic systems, try "totalitarian".
A dictatorship simply means that a single individual is in charge and has ultimate authority. The resultant system can have a variety of other paramters. It is not nearly as defining a term as 'socialism' or 'fascism'. The same goes for feudal/aristocratic (which by the way aren't related in the way this pairing would indicate). And neither do these need to be totalitarian. It is quite feasible for dictatorships (say Ceasar in Rome and the relation with Jews/Christians) to harbor a variety of philosophies and political systems.
I have long felt that we could comfortably shrink government if open markets were established to help settle such conflicts.
Open markets don't settle conflicts, they barter goods. This takes us right back to the question I was asking about a few weeks ago (Hayek was asking it of you as well). How does one reach the economic equilibrium which free market economies require? It is clear that they wil not spontaneously form, despite your claims here to the contrary.
If there are no laws, and both of you are committed to resolving the issue without violence, you probably both put money on the barrelhead to be paid to the other in the event you don't abide by an arbitrator's decision, and then go to an arbitrator and ask his opinion.
If a bullfrog had wings it wouldn't bust its butt when it jumped.
That's if you're civic minded, I suppose.
You suppose? So even you're not sure if it will work or not? Is that correct?
The fact is though, a lot of people wouldn't do that if they thought the arbitrator was likely to side with the other guy.
Why would an anarchist accept 3rd party arbitration? How is this any different than 'government'? If the arbitration doesn't conform to some sort of principle and standards then it's arbitrary and nobody with half a click of a clue will agree to arbitration with no principles or standards available. Anarchy was meant to prevent just this sort of situation. And what happens if one or more of the parties, excluding the arbiter, decide that neither want to comply? How does the arbiter enforce it?
Things become a lot easier if your property deed is a truly *complete* description of the property;
'property deed'? There is no government or law, there is no deed. You weren't paying attention the other day during the Goldback and fractal discussions, you can't create complete descriptions.
in that case you know who owns the volume over the fence (or whether it's held in common) and your neighbor started charging you rent for the encroachment of your tree into his volume years ago.
And why would I do that? Where did this standard come from in an anarchy? Where is the 'law' that decides that initial 'volumetric' estimate? Why should either party comply with such a description?
If you don't want to pay the rent, you have a few choices; you can trim your tree to keep it in your property, you can buy from him the volume over the fence where the tree's limbs are spreading, or you can offer tenancy in common of the volume in question, giving him the right to encroach into the volume near your house too.
Or I can tell the fat slob to trim his own roof and leave me alone. Then when he comes over later I shoot him and get both his house and mine now.
Note, this assumes sufficient government that property rights and
There is no government, it's an anarchy remember. Blipverts strike again. [remainder deleted out of mercy] ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:03:59AM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
...A Roman weapon which consisted of a group of reeds banded together with a axe head embedded. The point to the symbolism is that together we are stronger than apart (refering to the strength of individual reeds compared to when bundled).
Not quite true. It was the symbol carried by Roman jurists as a sign of their authority. A weapon, perhaps, but not used for cracking heads. -- Tiarnán Ó Corráin <ocorrain@esatclear.ie> "Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus." --- GPG fingerprint: 4A05 1FC3 5370 2696 C60D 59DD 71AF EBEF 1AE6 018F GPG public key at: http://www.esatclear.ie/~blackpitts/ocorrain.gpg
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Tiarnan O Corrain wrote:
Not quite true. It was the symbol carried by Roman jurists as a sign of their authority. A weapon, perhaps, but not used for cracking heads.
Not quite accurate either. Forward to sophist pendantry!
From one site I found using google and 'fasces'...
Ancient Roman symbol of the regal and later the magisterial authority. The fasces were cylindrical buncles of wooden rods, tied tightly together, from which an axe projected; they were borne by guards, called lictors, before preators, consuls, proconsuls, dictators, and emporors. The fasces, which symbolize unity as well as power, have often been used as emblems. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:57 AM -0700 12/17/00, Tiarnan O Corrain wrote:
Attachment converted: G4 Tower HD:Re- CDR- Re- This is why a free (MiME/CSOm) (00012800)
Please in-line your text. Your message above appears as an attachment (only, not just a digital signature). Sometimes Eudora Pro, a common e-mail program, is able to open such messages, sometimes not. In your particular case, for whatever reasons, attempting to open your attachment crashes my program. I tried three times, then gave up. Folks, this increase in MIME attachments is getting out of hand. People are reading this list on a variety of machines, from PDAs to Amigas to VT100s to Unix boxes to Windows. I am filtering Corrain's stuff into my trash file until someone (else) tells me his stuff is no longer MIME-encrusted. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim May writes:
Folks, this increase in MIME attachments is getting out of hand. People are reading this list on a variety of machines, from PDAs to Amigas to VT100s to Unix boxes to Windows.
I have a solution. I keep MIME turned off, and if the 7-bit representation of the message is not instantly recognizable as substantially English, I hit delete. Sometimes, if I am in a bad mood, I hit delete upon seeing the large "M" next to the message on the index, and don't even bother reading it. If the MIME infestation proliferates, this process can be automated. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Oh, what happened to the free market? Let those who flourish be the ones who can manage the new 'species'... CDR:'s in the header, messages too long, messages of the right format, not using the right font, doing 'forwards' instead of 'reply to', not editing replies according to the 'group will', using different editors which impliment different attachment protocols, etc., etc. I say screw all you over bearing anal retentive techno-luddites... ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Eric Cordian wrote:
Tim May writes:
Folks, this increase in MIME attachments is getting out of hand. People are reading this list on a variety of machines, from PDAs to Amigas to VT100s to Unix boxes to Windows.
I have a solution.
I keep MIME turned off, and if the 7-bit representation of the message is not instantly recognizable as substantially English, I hit delete.
Sometimes, if I am in a bad mood, I hit delete upon seeing the large "M" next to the message on the index, and don't even bother reading it.
If the MIME infestation proliferates, this process can be automated.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
What is truly being discussed, is adherence to a standard. A standard with the greatest cross-platform compatibility. Or would you throw out adherence to the IEEE 802.3 standard, and let all sorts of innovations sterling and ludicrous proliferate there, also? That may come, in time, but for the moment, TCP/IP reigns supreme, and list protocols are not exceptional, they are the norm. Get out & see the world Jim, there's more to it than just what you read in the Enquirer. At 10:13 AM 12/29/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Oh, what happened to the free market? Let those who flourish be the ones who can manage the new 'species'...
CDR:'s in the header, messages too long, messages of the right format, not using the right font, doing 'forwards' instead of 'reply to', not editing replies according to the 'group will', using different editors which impliment different attachment protocols, etc., etc.
I say screw all you over bearing anal retentive techno-luddites...
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Eric Cordian wrote:
Tim May writes:
Folks, this increase in MIME attachments is getting out of hand. People are reading this list on a variety of machines, from PDAs to Amigas to VT100s to Unix boxes to Windows.
I have a solution.
I keep MIME turned off, and if the 7-bit representation of the message is not instantly recognizable as substantially English, I hit delete.
Sometimes, if I am in a bad mood, I hit delete upon seeing the large "M" next to the message on the index, and don't even bother reading it.
If the MIME infestation proliferates, this process can be automated.
-- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim-- Good new sig. Ben.
At 11:24 AM 12/18/00 +0200, Ben wrote:
Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim--
Good new sig.
Motorcycles? I don't recall motorcycles here. The recent US international crime assessement lists global motorcycle gangs as a major threat to world peace, along with a couple of dozen new horsemen. The report claims all of these have rapidly adopted high-tech and info tools to advance their criminal agendas, and that there simply must be more global law enforcement cooperation, communications intercepts, and massive funding to combat these, these, Zen Fau Long Aum Shirinkyo whirring-spokemeisters.
At 11:24 AM 12/18/00 +0200, Ben wrote:
Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Tim--
Good new sig.
Motorcycles? I don't recall motorcycles here.
The recent US international crime assessement lists global motorcycle gangs as a major threat to world peace, along with a couple of dozen new horsemen. The report claims all of these have rapidly adopted high-tech and info tools to advance their criminal agendas, and that there simply must be more global law enforcement cooperation, communications intercepts, and massive funding to combat these, these, Zen Fau Long Aum Shirinkyo whirring-spokemeisters.
The thought of Mr. May on his R1100RS (Right? 1998?) riding with the Bandidios is... Amusing. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ********************************************** "Despite almost every experience I've ever had with federal authority, I keep imagining its competence." John Perry Barlow
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jim Choate wrote: <Lots of stuff, which I'm snipping...>
I have long felt that we could comfortably shrink government if open markets were established to help settle such conflicts.
Open markets don't settle conflicts, they barter goods.
And most conflicts are over goods, if you think about them that way. The tree is property, which encroaches into the volume near a neighbor's house. Conflict arises because it was never spelled out in the first place who owned that volume. If it had been, the choices are simpler and less ambiguous: get out of it, buy it, sell it, or charge rent on it. The factory is property, which encroaches into air quality. Conflicts arise because it was never spelled out in the first place who owned the right to what quality of air. The factory owner shouldn't be looking at legislation, per se; instead he should have to buy pollution rights on the local market, competing against other factory owners for the relatively small amount of contamination people have agreed to sell. Et cetera. All of this assumes that there is some means of transfer pricing stuff, some means of enforcing contracts, and a defined, extensive, set of property rights.
That's if you're civic minded, I suppose.
You suppose? So even you're not sure if it will work or not? Is that correct?
Total anarchy? Hell no, it won't work. Whatever gave you the idea that I thought it would? What I've been talking about is minimal government. The interesting question, to me, is what is the SMALLEST amount of government interference required to build a functional society? I believe that sufficient government to enforce property rights and freely entered contracts is absolutely required. That is not a total anarchy, and I do not want to live in a total anarchy. It is however, a minimum possible government -- and looks a lot like what most so-called 'anarchists' mean when they're talking about anarchy. I also believe that this "minimum possible government" would not in general build as successful a society as a government that appropriated enough power to make sure that education were available to everybody, and that there was a communication and transportation infrastructure that everybody could use, and which ruthlessly busted monopolies (whether on goods or on labor) into small competing fragments.
Why would an anarchist accept 3rd party arbitration?
To avoid death.
How is this any different than 'government'?
It's different because it's chosen. If the guy doesn't want to go to an arbitrator, he can choose to go to war with his neighbor, and run the risk of getting killed, either by his neighbor or by his neighbors' friend or family. In a society with laws and courts, you generally don't have a choice about that.
If the arbitration doesn't conform to some sort of principle and standards then it's arbitrary and nobody with half a click of a clue will agree to arbitration with no principles or standards available. Anarchy was meant to prevent just this sort of situation.
Huh? Anarchy *is* the absence of standards(laws) as far as I know. Arbitration or dispute settlement of some kind has to happen regardless of whether there are standards. So, in an anarchy, dispute settlement has to happen in an unprincipled way because there are no standards available. Anarchy doesn't prevent this; it directly causes it! Your point about only idiots going voluntarily into an arbitration not bound by laws is valid, of course, but A, the alternative is probably a shooting war that they are trying to avoid, and B, if we are talking about people who have apparently chosen to live in a society where laws are unavailable, they're probably not too bright anyway.
And what happens if one or more of the parties, excluding the arbiter, decide that neither want to comply? How does the arbiter enforce it?
The arbiter probably doesn't. If they don't want to comply, they just start shooting. But see the earlier point about a desire to avoid death. That's why they'd have come to an arbiter in the first place. Failure to abide by the decision would subtantially increase risk of getting killed. Being in violation of an arbitration would probably substantially increase your risk of going unavenged if you got killed, too, while increasing the risk of a vengeance killing against you in the event that you won the shooting war. Bear
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Ray Dillinger wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Jim Choate wrote:
<Lots of stuff, which I'm snipping...>
I have long felt that we could comfortably shrink government if open markets were established to help settle such conflicts.
Open markets don't settle conflicts, they barter goods.
And most conflicts are over goods, if you think about them that way.
Which is irrelevant in this scenario since it isn't about goods and isn't open to a 'market' solution.
The tree is property, which encroaches into the volume near a neighbor's house. Conflict arises because it was never spelled out in the first place who owned that volume. If it had been, the choices are simpler and less ambiguous: get out of it, buy it, sell it, or charge rent on it.
Really? Looks like more handwaving. How did those previous standards arise? I thought anarchist political systems had a mechanism to resolve 'property' conflicts? What are the sorts of 'standards' that anarchists suggest for resolving this sort of conflict? How do they build, and what are they, their litmus tests? Be that as it may however, this still doesn't resolve it, even with a priori standards. Standards aren't, and can't be, completely comprehensive. Let's assume we use the standard 'cutting the plane' definition used in trespass cases. In other words, once you've been advised to 'stay off my property' even waving your hand in the air above, but across the property line, is considered trespass. However, this clearly can't extend without bounds, otherwise the aircraft industry would be shut down trying to get over-flight permission from the bezillion (well really less than 300M but it's sufficient in this case) property owners. Now, when the tree limb crosses the property line, it becomes the other persons property. But does that give the person the right to chop the entire tree down if the trunk is on the property line? No, the point here is the 'maintenance of property' which isn't covered in free market theory because we're not shopping around for something, we're trying to keep some part of what we have (eg nice tree, undamaged roof). And those sorts of responsibilities are not resolvable through market forces because they're not a 'negotiable' aspect to the property (eg feeding your pet). After all, whose fault is it if the limb impacts the roof? The person who owns the roof? The owner of the tree? If it's the owner of the tree, just how far are my responsibilities to go with respect to maintenance of your(!) property? Why does anarchic theory not recognize this aspect of the philosophy? Why is this important facet ignored when 'property' is defined?
The factory is property, which encroaches into air quality.
Which is a perfect example of why anarchic and libertarien theory fail. By the time the 'market' even has knowledge of the problem the factory has already done the damage (ala Love Canal or Thalidomide).
Conflicts arise because it was never spelled out in the first place who owned the right to what quality of air.
That's because there is NO fundamental way to do it. It is as impossible (and for the same reasons I might add) to do as to describe a 'universal logic verifyer'. [ related stuff snipped ] ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (9)
-
Ben Samman -
Eric Cordian -
Jim Choate -
John Young -
ocorrain＠esatclear.ie -
petro -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
Tim May