On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Bill Stewart wrote:

Tim said that in a free society she wouldn't be able to sue. Jim said that Tim is entirely wrong, that in a free society she wouldn't be able to sue. It's true that they give different reasons, but I can't see that there's a fundamental conflict here.

No, I said she should be able to sue. To say that a person should not be able to sue if they feel they have been wronged simply because somebody wants to make a profit and such an action might impact that profit is NOT acceptable behaviour from a civil society based on democratic ideals.

Also, Jim says that "Democratic theory demands that..." Theories don't demand things, people do, but most people who like democracy demand that whatever the majority wants, it gets. (And some say, it ought to get it good and hard.)

Actually theories do demand, in the sense of compliance or adherence. If a theory says that a particular boundary condition must apply in order to apply (eg socialism equates to government ownership and management of all property including people) and a particular instance doesn't comply then it's clear another theory is required. It is the same sort of definition for 'demand' as that used by people to decide compliance as well. Your distinction is actually a false one.

Some theories about democracy say that this will always be good, because most people are mostly good; some say that this will be inherently right because it's what Da People want; some say that it may not be all that good but you can do a lot worse with most of the available alternatives, and that if you don't settle for that the worse alternatives will take over.

We're not talking about what people say. We are talking about the axiomatic requirements of theories and how to apply them to both pedantic as well as real world examples. The basic axiomatic definition of a democracy is pretty simply, the citizens of the government each get a vote in what that government will do. The details, whether it might be direct vote or through a bicamaral house or some other mechanism, still don't change that fundamental definition. No realistic theory about democracy says anything about how individuals will behave. If anything it is an open admission that people are so diverse and different in goals and desires that it can't be encompessed within a central organizational approach (eg socialism). The power of democracy, and the failure of socialism, fascism, anarchism, libertarianism, etc. is that it not only recognizes that no single set of goals will satisfy everyone. It recognizes that everyone has a say in what happens and why. It further, at least in most applications it appears, seems to recognize the right of minorities to be protected in their distinctions. In general any time a person feels that anothers behaviour has infringed their free expression has a right to review by a 3rd party (ie a court).

Tim, on the other hand, believes that in a free society that if you want to run a business you can (or at least you can try). Jim repeatedly asserts that running a business is a privilege that somebody, I guess Da Majority, graciously grants you, and can take away if they want, and that it's somehow not part of freedom.

As I've explained before, a business is the espression of the right to pursuit happiness. But the point that you and Tim always leave off is that you have that right UNTIL IT INFRINGES ANOTHER. You habitually ignore that others have equivalent rights you demand for yourself. In short, liberty for me but not for thee. Crypto-anarchy and libertarianism are just another form of fascism at best and socialism at worst. It's a means for one group of people to oppress and control another. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Me wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com>

...

Crypto-anarchy and libertarianism are just another form of fascism at best and socialism at worst. It's a means for one group of people to oppress and control another.

If Choatean programming follows Choatean physics and political philosophy, a lot of IBM's design choices suddenly make sense.

I look forward to your defence of crypto-anarchy-libertarian ideals. Is your premise that anarchy doesn't lead to a 'socialist' society? A society in which the choices of the individual are made en masse? Consider the congruency of world view a working anarchy requires? Then consider the disparity of world views between any two people. How do you resolve this obvious conflict? Anarchy has no answer other than everyone will do the 'right' thing because there isn't a 'government' there to coerce them by force. Anarchy can't even tell you what a 'government' is. Read the FAQ that is widely available on the web. Let's get rid of 'government' is nothing more than a veil for getting rid of people who differ in point of view. What is government? It's people who share some commen world view and agree, to a wide variety of degree, at least in some minimalist way on how it should be implimented. To get rid of government is to a priori restrict this world view. Yet anarchy promises us a wider choice of world view, apparently only so long as it's the approved one. How does a working anarchy resolve real world disputes? I offer you the example of a tree which is rooted in my back yard but has limbs impinging on my neighbors roof. Is it his or my responsibility to cut the limbs back to deter damage? Why? Whose responsiblity to pay for any damage that does occur to the roof from limbs? Why? When the tree dies who is responsible for the bill to remove the dead husk? Why? What happens if at any point during this resolution phase one of the parties refuses to participate further? Who do they go to for arbitration? What standards of arbitration will be used? Who is responsible for assuring compliance? What are the limits of compliance enforcement? Now, let's assume we've a neighbor making bombs and his garage is 15 ft. from your childs bedroom? Let's ask the same sorts of questions? As we've discussed before on the list, in the cases of commen services like fire fighting which are converted to profit making enterprises, how is intentional fire starting to be prevented? Who is to review the evidence and pursue the parties involved? How are they to be held accountable? ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Ray Dillinger wrote: [...snip...]

...

Now, let's assume we've a neighbor making bombs and his garage is 15 ft. from your childs bedroom? Let's ask the same sorts of questions?

If it's a residential neighborhood, then it was probably developed by a commercial real estate developer. In order to improve his bottom line, he will probably retain ownership of certain property rights...

Only an American could write this! You guys live in new houses, most of you. Whoever the property developer was in my neighbourhood in London, they probably died well before the first world war. And the company I bought my flat from went into liquidation some years ago, with the owners ending up in jail... Anyway in practice, right now, even in America, most people don't live in houses owned by property developers, and don't have the extensive set of complex legal conditions imposed on them that your idea would require. How does your "market-controlled anarchy" handle, say, building development on flood plains? A big political hot potato here at the moment, after our little brushes with real weather in October, & I should think a bigger one for anyone within 100 miles of the Mississippi and 40 feet of river level. I have no problem with the idea that someone who builds or buys in a flood-risk area should bear the risk of flood damage to their own property, which they probably got cheap because of the risk. (In the October floods in England there was some prat on the TV going on about how unlucky it was that the SAME PEOPLE got flooded out in Gloucester this time round as did last time. I couldn't help humming that old Sunday School song "The Wise Man built his house upon the rock... the rain came down and the floods came up, the rain came down and the floods came up...") But, by building on floodplains, and even more by "improving" farmland with drainage and dykes & bunds and various barriers to water flooding the land - in other words by defending your own property against floods - you make the floods more dangerous for others when they come. One of the reasons that some of the floods were worse than expected this year is that the water which used to spill onto seasonally flooded farmland now is constrained to stay in the river and breaks its banks somewhere else. So what do you do when the flood wipes out your house because some farmer 20 miles away drained his own land, as he has every right to do? Sue him? And if he can't afford it? (which he can't of course if the flood has just wiped out 3 streets of posh shops in a small city). [...snip...]

...

As we've discussed before on the list, in the cases of commen services like fire fighting which are converted to profit making enterprises, how is intentional fire starting to be prevented?

It's very hard. Probably the best route would be again through property developers; the property developer could retain the exclusive right to sell fire insurance on these buildings, and then license the right *only* to insurance companies who contributed a set percentage of premiums to a local firefighters company. Getting all these services straightened out is just good business from the property development POV.

That's how things were run in London in the 18th century. It didn't work very well. Which is whey they started paying for the fire brigade out of tax. The problem is you don't want your *neighbour's* house to burn down.Even if you really hate the neighbour, it is dangerous for you.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Me wrote:

I would like to defend libertarianism, I don't believe I can defend anarchy. I don't believe a system that lacks a government operating military and judicial services would be efficient.

I would respond to your claim that libertarianism is 'fascism at best and socialism at worst', but I can't even come close to guessing what you might be basing that upon.

Cool. I've gone over it before but it's a pain in the ass to have to search the archives. I'll elaborate per your feedback... Liberatarians are overly focused on 'the cost', wanting to eliminate all non-focused effort and cost. This as a goal within a suite of goals isn't so bad, however as the primary goal it is very bad. Why? Because without a basic equality not based on cost there is no way to protect those who don't have. And simply not having is not sufficient reason to ignore the needs of human beings. I do not see libertarians addresing this aspect of their philosophy. The general view I see on the individual level is 'screw 'em, if they can't pay let 'em hang'. This simply is not acceptable. It denegrates self and society. Libertarians are ignorant of the basic concepts of 'morality', it is not a factor in economic equations and is therefore safe to ignore. An example is prisons. Libertarians want to conver them into profit making business while at the same time completely ignoring what a prison is and why it exists and ultimately who is responsible for it. A prison is where society puts persons who don't behave accroding to some stricture. I believe details as to the particular stricture are irrelevant at this point. As a resul the people responsible for prisons are the individual citizens, not 'the government' which is a convenient straw man argument (which I don't see Libertarians even recognizing let alone addressing). As a result the cost of that detainment should be born by those individual citizens directly. It is a function and responsiblity of their citizenship. It is fascist because it wants to, in effect, centrally manage everyones resources to the benefit of all. It is potentially socialist because of the lack of recognition of fundamental civil liberties and the consequent abuse that can result as a consequence. It is cheaper after all if everyone has only a couple of choices for each decision. This minimizes the secondary market costs (and potentialy some primary ones as well). ____________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote:

Congruency of world view is unnecessary if coercion becomes difficult or impossible. If people can move and communicate and trade in spite of the desire of some others to prevent those exchanges, then they exist in a mutual state of anarchy without regard to their mutual opinions.

Nobody said congruencly of world view was a requirement. Looking at it like this is actually incorrect. The issue is NOT congruency (hence proving my socialist/fascist point prima facia) but rather TOLERANCE of existing world views. Without some mechanism to control the violence and inherent xenophobia of human psychology being able to 'move around unhindered' becomes THE problem. Anarchy would be the Jews and the Arabs going at it without the UN and other mediating forces. This is a PERFECT example of why anarchy requires a 'socialist' world view to begin with. Anarchy would be 7 prisoners loose in Texas, who've already killed at least one policeman and commited several robberies, with no police force or centralized C4I mechanisms. Anarchy = "Don't worry, be happy!" ____________________________________________________________________ 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, petro wrote:

"Privilige (sic) of running a business"?

Huh?

Do you have the "Privilege" of being allowed to work?

No, I don't. Nobody keeps you from working either as an employee of another person or indiependently. If you don't work it's because you're too damn lazy.

To say running a business is a "privilege" is to say that every action, everything that a person does besides breathing is a privilege.

Actually the right of self-defence is the ultimate and base right on which all others are rooted. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Who can bestow that privilege?

Your parents, in particular your mother when they deliver a living child to the world. At that point they are yours.

Asinine.

Accurate and just more like it. Asinine is believing that you can use other people as property simply because you want to make money off some activity that benefits you. Right for me, not for thee. Typical anarcho-libertarian-crypto bullshit.

Unless you are chaining people to their desks, posting armed guards to prevent them from leaving, or using the law to prevent them from quiting and finding another job, you aren't treating them as property.

If you're walking around telling them who they may see, what they may do outside of work, the sorts of political views they may have, the sorts of inter-personal views (eg Tim's hatred of lesbianism) and activities they may engage in, etc. Unless you can demonstrate the activity is causing a corruption of the work process it isn't any of the employers business. If you don't treat them as people with the same liberties and right of decision that you as an individual have then yes, you are in fact treating them as property.

You are treating them as adults, as independent people who can make up their own minds as to where and under what conditions they are willing to work.

Bullshit, what you're saying is 'do it my way or else'. That isn't what business is about. As an employer your range of control over an 'adult' is to verify their actions comply with the profit making requirements of the business, and no more. It is not to use the business as a mechanism to expand your personal views onto others.

...

process of making profit. Democratic theory demands that unless the calendar can be demonstrably infringing a civil liberty it shouldn't be an issue. Freedom until you infringe anothers.

The fundamental flaw with Libertarianism is it's myopic focus on economic efficiency. It's just another form of oppression via another face of socialism.

Utter nonsense. But then the further the subject strays from programming and computers, the more that is common from you.

Demostrate please. The rights of the individual are inalienable, that include a business. A business is not a right like speech. A business requires at least two parties rights do not, the other party has a say and therefore the act of business can't be a right because 'the choice' by its very nature is not confined to a single party.

...

As to money being the primary goal of society and it having some ability to guarantee anything approaching 'justice',

"Money and not morality is the principle of commerce and commercial nations."

Money, or rather the trade of goods and services *is* the morality of a society.

No, it is how society funds itself. It has nothing to do with morality since even polar opposites in this respect must still engage in some sort of activity to survive. If you were correct then there would be some oppresive societies which don't use economics, which flies in the face of your assertion. This is the fundamental flaw of this view of economics. Societies don't need economics (consider a 5 person family on the African sveldt) but economies do need society (they require the population size in order to have a 'market' and they need the political and ethical stability that ensues so that 'contracts' can exist. Without contracts no economy can exist because without them there is no recognition, outside of direct force, of property rights.

Or to put it a little better, Money is the INDICATOR of the morality of a culture. It tells you what they value, what they want and what they think important.

Money is a tool to createa stable and enjoyable society (it also creates the polar opposite). Even bad societies have money so it can't indicate anything about the society itself, other than it conforms to the human psychological norm of group behaviour. ____________________________________________________________________ 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, James A. Donald wrote:

If running a business is a privilege, then of course it will be restricted to the privileged, which is exactly what we see in the more extreme social democracies, where the people running the show are usually the lineal descendents of those who got their start at the time of Napoleon.

Demonstrate that a 'business' is a right in the same class as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? It is clear a business is a form of 'pursuit of happiness' but that doesn't make it equivalent. Rights are something you as an individual have by mere existance. A 'business' can't exist in that environment, there is no 'market'. Do people have a right to work? No. They have a right to try to work. They can do that by starting their own business or working in somebody elses. But neither are a 'right' in the sense you want to use them. People have a right to pursuit happiness, why? Because they are already unhappy, why? Because if they don't get off their ass something will come along and eat them. ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------