This is why a free society is evil. (fwd)

Jim Choate ravage at einstein.ssz.com
Sun Dec 17 07:03:59 PST 2000




    ____________________________________________________________________

           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 at 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 at einstein.ssz.com>
To: Ray Dillinger <bear at 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 at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------







More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list