Re: William Gibson

[rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray)]

Alexander Reynolds () writes:
> >   Absolute and complete freedom means "freedom from ALL restrictions" If
> > you collectively own property, you are under the restriction of the majority's
> > will to control that property.
> 
> That assumes that the majority has a will.

   Sooner or later there is going to be a conflict. If you can do anything
you desire with your body and the surrounding matter/energy, that is
equivalent to absolute property rights. If a sufficiently large group of 
people come along and restrict your activity, you don't have absolute and 
complete freedom, QED. 

> I never said anarchy was easy.  If you want to starve, then that is your
> choice; that is anarchy: nobody forcing you to behave as THEY want you to
> by THEIR rules.  

  And if you disagree with the way the majority of your "collective"/commune
is using the collective property? Love it or leave it? What happens
if a capitalist is magically transported to this society and he wishes
to start a business. No one is going to force him to not behave like
an entrepreneur?

> > If you are forced to work, you are being
> > ruled, if someone else is, you are ruling them. 
> 
> That is what a "free-"market economy does!  It removes government rule
> over people and replaces it with business/oligarchial rule.

  And anarchosocialism removes it from business and places it among
the group. Either way, a group of people has some control over your
life. By your definition of anarchism, it is an oxymoron.

> >    Rand did not present an economic theory, she presented a philosophy.
> 
> You didn't read the book.

  Objectivism is a _philosophy_, not an economic theory. Objectivists
tend to be pro-laissez-faire simply because it follows naturally from
individualism. That's why the objectivism usenet group is called
alt.philosophy.objectivism, not sci.econ.objectivism. If Atlas Shrugged
presented an economic theory, could you please define the model rigorously?
(If you have taken atleast Econ 101 you will know what I mean by "model")

>> You can present a theory through fiction, but you can not prove or disprove
>> it through a story book world, hence I take objection to your ridiculous
>> assertion:
>>>   It is only through theory that an pseudoanarchist capitalist State can
>>> exist, read Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ and you'll see my point.  Gibson's
>> 
>>   Here you imply Atlas Shrugged proves that an anarchocapitalist
>> state can only exist in theory. Whoops, back to logic 101.
>> 
> 
> Again you do not understand what anarchy is!  Read Skinner's Beyond Freedom or

   You still didn't answer my criticism. In the quote above you state
"It is only through theory that a pseudoanarchist capitalist state can
exist" and as proof of this bald assertion, you state "read Atlas Shrugged"
The implication you made was, by reading a book of fiction book you 
can disprove a economic theory. Care to explain that? There are two
ways to disprove a theory: 1) show that it isn't self-consistent
2) apply the theory and produce a counter example from reality.
You haven't shown (1), and since Atlas Shrugged isn't reality and never
has been, (2) doesn't work either.

  This is my last message on the subject. You should think about what
cypher technology can do and compare that to your philosophy. A functioning
BlackNet(tm) won't produce a non-market non-laissez-faire system. If 
anything it will promote buying and selling of data, dossiers, stolen
designs, property, etc.


-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --