At 5:37 PM 12/10/1996, Jim Wise wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
The logical implication here is that a thousand people "getting together" and doing something is no different in principle than one person doing that something. Not a valid implication, although the result is not necessarily false on a per-case basis.
Actually, I think this is a very valid implication. One of the main ways in which statist societies justify their restrictions on individuals is by reifying large bodies of individuals and giving them their own rights and responsibilities _as_a_seperate_entity_. To speak of a mass of individuals, whether you call it a corporation, a collective, or a government, as having a different set of rights than the individuals who make it up, is the heart of statism.
Naturally, I agree with Jim. To expand on his comments, if it is acceptable to lend your money to whomever you like, surely it must be acceptable to lend your money to other people on whatever terms you like. These terms could be "I will lend you this money on the condition that you lend it only to pure-blooded Albanians." The reason organizations are subjected to controls has only to do with what is feasible. The people who want to control these organizations would be quite happy to dictate to individuals what they may do with their money. Fortunately, this is not practical. Historically, many societies have not allowed the formation of organizations without governmental approval. For instance, in pre-Revolutionary France, it was not even possible to form a club without official sanction. The Monarchy made a major concession when it permitted the free formation of clubs. It may also have been a strategic blunder, as the clubs immediately became the focus of Revolutionary political activity. I believe that in many Medieval and Renaissance societies, even something as simple as a market could not be established without approval. One of the great ideas of the modern age is that people have the right to form organizations. It should probably be in the Bill of Rights. (We do have the right to "peaceably assemble", but that is not as general as the right to organize.) You are completely correct that control of human organizational activity is the hallmark of a totalitarian state. Back to redlining, it is typically minority groups which are the most prone to lending only to their own group. This has been said about Jewish people, although I haven't seen it in practice. (Perhaps this was true a few centuries ago?) An excellent modern example is the Korean-American community. There is a custom to form pools of capital between small numbers of friends, five would be a typical number. One friend is appointed to set up and run the business. There are very powerful social prohibitions against failure and consequent loss of capital. Very seldom is one of the group anything but Korean. My understanding is that this works quite well. It is hard to find anything objectionable in the practice.
Ironically, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hate, etc. are often judged by the public on a "gut level" as well. It's just a matter of how to "educate" the public to see these things.
Exactly. Like most, I have a strongly visceral negative reaction to bigotry. I wish there could be a system of law which contained it. There cannot, or at least not without doing even more harm.
But what is it that we want to make illegal? Bigotry is not a well defined term. Generally what we object to is people drawing the "wrong" conclusions about other groups of people. Certainly, we do not believe that we should dictate what conclusions people should draw, any more than we believe we should dictate what they may say. Do we then believe that we should outlaw the actions they take based on these beliefs? So long as the people in question are doing no harm, I propose we leave them alone to live their lives. Ironically, I have found that those who are most vocal on the subject of bigotry are most prone to it themselves. It isn't okay to make statements of your belief regarding Albanians - especially poor Albanians - but it is okay to make any statement about yuppies, preppies, geeks, nerds, Libertarians, Objectivists, or any other sort of approved "those people" groups. I'm sure many readers of this list have had conversations which abruptly end with "Are you a Libertarian?", which is generally completely irrelevant to the point under discussion. What is happening is that the other person is more interested in knowing your tribal identification than what you believe. A pity. Red Rackham
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
One of the great ideas of the modern age is that people have the right to form organizations. It should probably be in the Bill of Rights. (We do have the right to "peaceably assemble", but that is not as general as the right to organize.)
You are completely correct that control of human organizational activity is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.
I would go further than this, though. I would say that that mode of thought which considers an organization to _be_ an individual, with rights and responsibilities of its own, is the hallmark of a state. (_all_ states are totalitarian to some degree, that is what makes them states). That is to say, when we say "General Electric owns so and so many dollars in assets" or "The government has a duty to protect its citizens", we are accepting the basic precept of statism, that these groups should be treated as something other than the sum of the individuals whom they are made up of.
Exactly. Like most, I have a strongly visceral negative reaction to bigotry. I wish there could be a system of law which contained it. There cannot, or at least not without doing even more harm.
But what is it that we want to make illegal? Bigotry is not a well
That's the point I was trying to make. We cannot outlaw `bigotry' because any such law would be a basic violation of the rights of thought, and expression. What we should do is combat the ignorance and factionalism which make it possible. As I said, the main obstacle to doing away with bigotry is the fact that modern statist societies rely on alienating the masses against themselves to keep prevent popular insurrection. -- Jim Wise System Administrator GSAPP, Columbia University jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim * Finger for PGP public key *
Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
At 5:37 PM 12/10/1996, Jim Wise wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
The logical implication here is that a thousand people "getting together" and doing something is no different in principle than one person doing that something. Not a valid implication, although the result is not necessarily false on a per-case basis.
Actually, I think this is a very valid implication. One of the main ways in which statist societies justify their restrictions on individuals is by reifying large bodies of individuals and giving them their own rights and responsibilities _as_a_seperate_entity_. To speak of a mass of individuals, whether you call it a corporation, a collective, or a government, as having a different set of rights than the individuals who make it up, is the heart of statism.
[snip] If you're saying that it's wrong (bad, whatever) for corporations to have special protections and so on (taxes, other things) that don't apply to individuals who are (for example) not part of any corporations, then I do agree with you. OTOH, the evils which can be accomplished in practice (never mind theory) by power groups such as large corporations, which cannot be accomplished by individuals (or cannot in practice be defended against) are a problem that society has addressed, sometimes on a case-by-case basis (usually better), and sometimes through big legislation, which often far outlives its usefulness. I hope we're at least seeing the same points.
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn -
Jim Wise -
nobody＠huge.cajones.com