RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)
Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:36:49 -0500 From: Bill Stewart
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)
At 10:38 AM 11/10/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Your right, let me spell it out. Free-markets as depicted by anarcho-whatever theories legitimize theft, physical violence, extortion, etc.
Nonsense. Governments are the ones who claim legitimacy for their theft, violence, and extortion.
Nonsense, in this country the people chose to give the federal government specific duties in regards violence and when it could be used and how. It's nowhere near as one-sided as you would have anyone believe.
Free markets consider those things to be bad, though in some free markets they're for sale anyway.
I find NOTHING in free-market theory that says violence is bad let alone that it won't be prevelant. I hear a lot of folks claim this is the natural result but then again, that's what Trotsky and his ilk did back at the beginning of this century. Simply claiming something about a potential system is not the same as demonstrating that it actualy works that way.
Nonsense again. Social institutions aren't a market issue,
They are if they impact what people do with their income. Simply saying that we're going to ignore the political and economic impact of a sector of human indeavour simply because it doesn't if within a nice little chart is a disservice.
though some services provided by them can also be provided by markets, i.e. hiring people to do things. They're a social issue, and people will form social institutions to do things if they want.
Which takes money and time which has to come and go somewhere.
Absence of coercion doesn't mean absence of cooperation.
Please demonstrate what about anarchy will coerce (there is no other term) individuals to do what is best for their neighbor. In the process you will need to demonstrate as well why other systems prevent or prohibit such expression currently.
Anarchists are perfectly good at having schools, churches, volunteer fire companies, theater groups, and soup kitchens, and they still raise their kids, live inside if they want,
If taken as individual instances, trying to argue from the specific to the general in this case raises a whole can of worms that none of you are answering, though I must admit some very nifty side-steps.
Just because you don't have a social institution that announces that it has the job of killing anybody who competes with it or fails to obey its proclamations of the will of the majority doesn't mean you don't have social institutions.
Nobody claimed that Bill, straw-man.
You've sure got the cart before the horse here. Most anarchists I know, whether leftists or libertarians, care more about justice and equity than any government I've encountered (maybe not more than the citizens ruled by the government, but more than the government itself.) We just don't think a State is a good or likely way to get them, given too much experience to the contrary, even if some occasional groups of people have some limited success running a limited government for short periods of time.
Explain how it works, it's that simple (and repeated for about the umpteenth time). I find another aspect of anarchism pretty interesting, that is the level of cooperation and homogeneity it would require for people to work together. They have to give up various expressions of their religions and personal beliefs in order to participate, othewise they let the assholes house burn or whatever. Sounds suspicously like socialism where each person is expected to participate and produce according to the good of the many. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:36:49 -0500 From: Bill Stewart
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd) Just because you don't have a social institution that announces that it has the job of killing anybody who competes with it or fails to obey its proclamations of the will of the majority doesn't mean you don't have social institutions.
Nobody claimed that Bill, straw-man.
Now wait a minute, which side was it that said that an "anarchistic society" was an oxymoron? You know, that we can't have a society without a state? The state is nothing but an organization which kills anyone who doesn't obey its will (however that will is determined, or however many orders it will give you before disobedience is fatal). By saying this, you *are* saying that it is necessary to "have a social institution that announces that it has the job of killing anybody who competes with it or fails to obey its proclamations of the will of the majority" in order to have *any* social institutions (i.e., to have a society). *We* weren't the ones who raised that strawman. ;)
Explain how it works, it's that simple (and repeated for about the umpteenth time).
We have, haven't you been listening? Michael Hohensee
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate
-
Michael Hohensee