[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: democracy?! (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 22:06:03 GMT
> From: Adam Back <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: democracy?!
>
> Jim Choate <[email protected]> writes:
> > What is a reasonable summary? Reasonable to who? What 'lot' of
> > democracies?
>
> This is getting kind of repetitive.
I agree, I keep asking for your examples and proof and you keep avoiding
providing them. You should consider being a politician or a lawyer. It's a
real pity you can't seem to approach this discussion in good faith and with
a sense of open analysis.
> Perhaps you could provide a
> counter example to disprove my claim that democracies result in more
> petty privacy and freedom invasive laws than would be the case with a
> pure market anarchy
Pure market anarchy? What the hell is a pure market? I know what a free
market is. Define it first. Explain how it, without an explicit
bill of rights, will protect my rights? Explain how we don't end up with a
Microsoft that owns everything which effectively reduces to a commercial
communism? Where are my 'exit' choices then? What in the world would
motivate such an entity to provide me with the resources to be a direct
competitor, something clearly not in its best interest for long-term
survival? How will others learn the technology and its applications outside
the purvue of these economic regulatory entities. The unlimited expansion of
the rail-roads in the 1800's is a excellent simili for comparison for both
what such a system would be like as well as the major problems it *doesn't*
address. Taminy Hall ring any bells? There was a free market political
system if there ever was one; pay me and I'll do it for you, don't and you
can freeze in hell. A more modern example is the history of the
telecommunications companies which even after being broken up have now
re-combined so that we in effect only have 3 domestic tel-comm providers, and
they are discussing how to combine their resources. Further explain why such
a system will guarantee that my views will at least be addressed at some
level and not relegated a priori to a trash-heap because it goes against the
market analysis of some bunch of bean-counters? Who do I go to for
resolution of claims against these entities, the self-same entities? You
call that justice, equality, or even representation? Explain why and how such
a economic based system will guarantee my right to free speech or even to run
a small business which I currently do when it is clear that I am in open
competition with the very entities which provide me the resources to make the
money? What is the economic motivation for the resource controlling entities
to support my freedoms when it reduces their income? Explain how your system
prevents economic black-balling? Another implication is that we will see more
of the sort of business stategies implimented by PGP Inc. (for example) where
they want a percentage of your income *without* accepting a percentage of the
risk, economic tyrany is tyrany just the same. What recourse do I have if the
monopolies which arise in such a system decide that the services or resources
I need won't be provided? Am I then supposed to just calmly accept becoming
some prole for some zaibatsu? What happens when those monopolies decide that
if they work together they can further streamline the market, and my going to
church or taking a vacation goes against those business requirements?
It sounds like you are supporting Hirshleifer who says:
"The mere fact of low income under anarchy... of itself provides no clear
indication as to what is likely to happen next."
[Personly, Hirshleifer is an idiot who apparently doesn't hang out on the
wrong side of the tracks and therefore has no clue as to what motivates
the poor or stupid.]
Which in effect breaks down into one of two results for individuals (which
all free market anarchists admit openly) who don't have sufficient income
to buy their indipendance and their say:
1. they devote a great deal of effort to fighting to gain control over
resources.
or
2. they capitulate to some other party and turn over their resources
for food and shelter.
History would argue that people will accept neither of these as a solution
to day-to-day living. Economists should stay out of politics. It's one of
the reasons that at no point in either the Declaration of Indipendance or
the Constitution that businesses are given rights are even given
consideration except in regards of taxation of inter-state commerce. People
should have seperation of government and religion and that includes the
worship of wealth.
> (perhaps old Iceland would be a suitable anarchy
> to consider as a comparison).
If it's so damn good how come it doesn't exist anymore? If it provided such
a superior governmental system providing the maximum return on investment
why did it go away? Why did they instead elect to go with a king? Futher,
explain how such an anarchic system can be expanded without demonstrating
the exact same sorts of scaling problems consensual democracies such as
ancient Greek ran into? It's one thing to rule a few 10's of thousands of
people who are related, share world-models and have limited resources and
quite another to rule 4+ Billion people who speak hundreds if not thousands
of languages and concommittent cultural beliefs?
> Do you have a democracy in mind which
> doesn't result in lots thought crimes and other "crimes" which are so
> far removed from normal free market schelling points. It's just a
> natural tendency of a democracy.
Thought crimes and such are not a result of any political system but a
result of the psychology of people. Please be so kind as to demonstrate
(along with my previous questions I am still waiting on) how a political
system effects the basic psychological development of the participants.
Further, explain how the belief in the resolving power of money is any
different than the resolving power of Buddha? You seem to be claiming that
if we pray to the all mighty dollar all will be right with the world.
> > > But they do share a characteristic:
> > > distortions of free market in the form of voting for theft and
> > > redistribution of other peoples money leading to annoying government
> > > micro-management, and general do-gooder busy-body-ness, and the many
> > > laws on thought crimes.
> >
> > Again, demostrate your assertion(s).
> >
> > Who? What? When? Where? Why? How?
>
> Who? What? Current democracices. When? Now. Why? Market
> distortion. How? Politicians brokering legalised mass theft and
> market distortion for game theoretic reasons.
You seriously expect any reasonable person to be satisfied with such a
side-step?
And in case you hadn't realized it, the entire concept of free-market is a
result of those same game theories. Are you claiming that such free market
based systems will abandon game theory when it clearly provides insight into
how those free markets operate?
> > > Your constitution says you can own and carry
> > > guns; your politicians and law enforcement increasingly say that you
> > > can not. Your response to my saying that is that _I_ don't understand
> > > the constitution?
> >
> > No, my responce is prove your assertions.
>
> You prove your assertion: are you saying there are no gun controls in
The simply fact that one has a constitution that guarantees certain rights is
*not* a guarantee that others won't find those rights threatening and want to
take them away (see Hirshleifer's two alternatives above). And your assertion
is that if we go to a free market anarchy then we no longer have to worry
about anyone telling us what we can and can't do? Please be so kind as to
demonstrate why a free market anarchy will prohibit monopolistic
organizations who would be just as threatened by armed individuals as any
other centralized organization?
> > Explain to me why you believe these are valid views
>
> because they are a statement of readily observable reality?
Where do I observe them? Give examples. Whose reality? Are you seriously
claiming that there is one absolute reality?
> > What you did say was that back in the old days people ran around
> > killing those who bothered them. Which isn't true either.
>
> That bit was a statement of a belief that few people would be inclined
> to invade someones privacy and attempt to impose sanctions for what
> they viewed as thought crimes. It takes governments or religions to
> do this kind of thing, individuals aren't likely to
Governments and religions *ARE* people. There are times where I think you
have said the stupidist thing possible and then you keep typing. Individuals
are the ones who killed the Jews, put pepper spray in the eyes of
demonstrators, and just about everything else that gets done.
> > > The point was there were way less laws, and few were telling their
> > > neighbours what they could think.
> >
> > Really? What was the law count say in 1865 versus 1965? 1897 v 1997?
> > Demonstrate your point.
>
> I say: there were less laws in 1897 US than 1997 US.
>
> Tell me: do you refute that claim?
I don't know, never looked at the numbers *AND* it isn't my job to refute
it. *IT IS* your job to prove it since it is *YOUR* claim and apparently has
some relevance to your thesis' validity. The number of laws at any given time
is irrelevant and immaterial to my position (nice attempt at a straw man).
It is plain stupidity to make claims and not have a clue as to the reality.
I shure as hell won't be asking people to put their lives in my hands unless
I could address such issues in a manner that they would feel comfortable with.
Gut feelings are almost always wrong. The mere fact that you feel that we
should take such claims at face value is a clear indication of what kind of
worth you place in others. You believe yourself to be an angel apparently.
Oh, and for the record. Studies of deaths during the 1800's indicate that
the vast majority were accidental self-inflicted gunshot wounds, far more
than the Indians or other 3rd parties inflicted combined.
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there |
| be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. |
| |
| -Alan Greenspan- |
| |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| [email protected] |
| 512-451-7087 |
|____________________________________________________________________|