On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:

What argument from authority? Barring the sudden onset of senility or insanity, familiarity with past work gives you a general indication of whether or not you want to read something.

Your question is your own answer. Your belief in their consistency, and it's acceptability by your sensibilities, is an 'authority'. You've given them trust a priori. I prefer they earn it each and every time anew. A personal note, I hate sequels.

Even reading this list, I'm sure there are people you read first and people you skip totally...And how likely is it that the first 15 essays are excellent but they saved the crappy ones for 16 on? ha!

Actualy I read just about every submission to the list, I don't in general pick viewpoints based on personality. The whole 'cult of personality' crap makes me queezy. As to essays, I find it a rare author who writes 15 pages, let alone 15 essays, I don't find problems with. If you can read a book and go through an entire chapter without saying "wait just a damn minute..." then you're either not absorbing what is being said, you are reading material that is already in line with your views/expectations, or else it's 'fluff'. I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you believe/want. Myself, I tend to go places where I'm the minority (this mailing list being an example) because the dialog is much more invigorating than sitting in a bunch of people who already agree with me.

All I'm saying is that his background credentials and published work was every bit as impressive the performance at the meeting...and that one of his essays is on the list. :) Now with a backstory like that, you actually mean to tell me I don't have a good reason to look forward to reading it? HA!

Actually it demostrates my thesis above. You had a view, you found his view to be complementary (you agreed with everything he said), and now you pursue that. Me, I'd hunt for the holes in his theory/argument (and I guarantee they are there). You read what you sow.

...

...

I strongly want global trade and cultural exchange. I do not want global government or corporate enterprise. You mean global corporate enterprise, or corporate enterprise at all? Actually both. The 1870 law which created the modern monster of a 'corporation' should be thrown out.

Replaced with what, though. That's the hard part.

Nothing. There is no need. The reality is that 'business' is nothing more than 'pursuit of happiness'. If a company, any human enterprise, commits a crime then the people who are responsible as well as the people who executed the crime should pay. If that means the company goes down, so be it. Another will rise in its place...phoenix like. The fact that people are out of work is irrelevant. The market (ie out of work people and other businesses that don't have enough workers) will correct. You have a right to 'try', no guarantee to 'succeed'.

...

Corporations, and other business organizations, should be able to sell to their like type across the relevant 'big pond'. A corporation should not be able to exist in two different countries as a single organization.

So the answer is to break them up and create more paperwork and bureacracy?

Prove that such a move would create either...you made the assertion and I am not willing to take it at face value. It doesn't create more paperwork or beurocracy, it reduces it (considerably).

Even if your last point is the "right answer" in theory, I don't see how the implementation of it would get you the results you're after, in terms of effects on society.

Explain your doubts more clearly (ie emulate that author you were proud of above)... A democratic government should consist of two broad components, the elected and the voters (corporations can do neither, and recognizing the elected are also voters). By eliminating the 'big money' effects on democracy we remove the largest component of its abuse, influence by non-participants.

...

...

I want direct interaction of business in government to be prohibited. How? Any solution I can think of has the potential to be more problematic than the problem itself. So what solution(s) have you thought of? Quid pro Quo...

The obvious first step would be to limit government to its constitutionally proscribed role: get them out of activities best left to the private sector.

No, the obvious first step is to get big business (really any business) out of government. To eliminate the ability of 'business' as a independent agent (equivalent to a person with natural rights, which they ain't - they are the expression of natural rights - not the same thing) to participate in government will do a great deal toward putting our country back on the right track (ie serving the people and their 'pursuit of happiness' directly).

But without the incentives for a thriving nonprofit sector in place (yes, 501(c)(3)s are international corporations too), it can't happen in a way people could be comfortable with enough to accept. Nonprofits are the key to creating a civil society, and in my opinion it's a huge mistake to ignore their role in taking over services that the private sector can't or won't. How could voluntary collective action be anything BUT good..? Oh well.

??? People are the key to a civil society. Non-profits allow a group of like minded individuals to participate in ways that are prohibited to government (because government per se is not any more the solution to all human problems than 'economics' is). 'private sector' has 'non-profit' as a component. You draw a false distinction. You speak double-speak quite well, you're hard work has paid off... 'voluntary collective action' has caused quite a bit of damage in history. Look at religion, politics (eg socialism), etc. Simply because people volunteer to some act does not, and is not sufficient even in theory, make it a 'good' thing. Only popular. Never confuse the two. Might does not make right.

Realistically speaking, even if the entire US government collapsed tomorrow and you had "complete anarchy", it wouldn't be complete because large corporations have enough capital, resources, and sufficient organization to stay together to the point that they could maintain some semblance of order in their local area.

Bullshit. If the government collapsed tomorrow the last thing I'd be worried about (and so would 90% of the rest of the population) would be going to work tomorrow morning. The small factor that would be running around worried about their 'profit margin' are simply sticking their heads in the sand. The reason there wouldn't be complete anarchy isn't economics, its politics and shared culture. The state and local governments would still be operating. This is the real strength of a multi-tiered distributed authority democracy. It's well nigh impossible to destroy short of a total scorched earth approach. Look at the collapse of the CCCP for a real world example of how your belief in the 'saviour of economics' will act. It won't save anything, it will corrupt and abuse with the best of 'em.

Look at the way the oil companies function in Africa;

And exactly how do you propose they function? In large parts of Africa the oil industry is nationalised.

look at the way drug cartels (an international business operation if ever there was one) influence policy in Columbia. Not that there's anything good or desirable about it--it's just that Joe Blow the Democracy Advocate doesn't have the slightest bit of influence over them one way or the other, government or not.

Really? I wonder how long those drug cartels would exist if their bases in the US were all of a sunded removed. I wonder how they'd take it when they discovered they could no longer gain access to US resources because of their behaviour?

So given that, you're faced with the prospect of massive legislation as the only alternative. That doesn't seem too promising either.

Actually I'm not. Limits of your imagination are not limits of mine thank you very much. The answer isn't more legislation. It's less, more rational, principled legislation. Coupled with strict enforcement. I'd hypothesize that a functioning American democracy could exist with less than 2000 individual laws (I suspect considerably less actually). The answer is not to make it more complicated and more 'exception based' but to make it 'principle based'.

...

An observation that is sure to piss some C-A-C-L's off, but the reality is that in 'free market' economics ala Hayek or Von Mises the potential for 'Bill Gates' wealth is nil. A 'free market' system isn't about getting filthy rich. It's about participating in a 'community'.

Unfortunately, this involves a confusion between capitalism and democracy.

Perhaps on your part. I'm quite clear on the distinction. But I"ll humor you, what confusion might that entail?

But unlike you, I don't think there's any contradiction in being pro-free market and anti-consumptionism.

I didn't say there was a contradiction (in fact I said the opposite). A free market isn't about consumption, it's about choice and allowing the individual to make it. Consuptionism is clearly contrary to that.

I hate the idea that so many people seem to think accumulating material goods is an acceptable substitute for an inner life. But just because I choose to live simply and don't drive in favor of commuting, recycle, etc. doesn't give me the right to demand others do the same.

Clearly, however if their refusal to be responsible with the consequences of their acts interfere with me then I have a right to act in self-defence. You have a right to pursue happiness, you don't have a right to interfere or stop others in their pursuite. And 'living simply' does not equate to 'inner life'. To say that one rejects physical things because others pursue them isn't a moral view point. It's just as much 'living up to the Joneses' as the consumerist. A rich 'inner life' is about doing what you think is right, not a reference to what other people think. You are What you do When it counts The Msao

But the examples I gave above point to the idea that pure democratic anarchy is every bit as bound to fail as the ideal of pure democratic communism was (what's the real difference, when you think about it?)

Communism is about heirarchical (ie communes) structures. Democracy is about individual choice. Not the same thing. Anarchy is about not having a 'leader' even a philisophical one. Clearly contrary to both communism and democracy.

precisely because of the way people tend to make things, given the chance. What's to keep the strong and clever from ganging up on the weak and stupid? The amoral from ripping off the principled and pious? Anywhere, ever? The Constitution and the rule of law is the best chance we have...

There is no such thing as 'democratic anarchy' or 'democratic communism'. That you would even stick them together indicates your fundamental misunderstanding of the true concepts and your acceptance of the status quo as defined by others. Congratulations, you're a full blown subscriber to the consumerism party: Baffle 'em with bullshit, by the time they figure it out we'll be long gone with the goods.... -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------