RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

Jim Choate writes:

> Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>

> > Absence of coercion doesn't mean absence of cooperation.
> 
> Please demonstrate what about anarchy will coerce (there is no other term)
> individuals to do what is best for their neighbor.

Jim,

This is the central disconnect between you and the other side.  You
obviously have as a core assumption that people should be /required/
to do what is best for their neighbor.  Most anarchists would reject
that assumption.  Instead, an anarchist would say "The best thing I
can do for my neighbor (and the only thing I 'owe' him) is to leave
him alone."  That is, I have no affirmative obligation to do anything
for my neighbor to make his life better.

All that being said, it may be in my own best interests to do "what is
best" for my neighbor; then, if my house should catch fire, I have a
much better chance that my neighbor will help extinguish the fire.

>                                                    In the process you will
> need to demonstrate as well why other systems prevent or prohibit such
> expression currently.

Non sequitur.  I'm pretty nice to my neighbors now.  Aren't you?
This has nothing to do with any government.

The defenders/proponents of anarchy here aren't saying that government
prevents the function of any of the anarchist mechanisms.  Rather that
government is an unnecessary and onerous burden on its subjects.

> Explain how it works, it's that simple (and repeated for about the umpteenth
> time).

What's to explain?  As has been described on this list countless 
times, the examples of natural 'anarchist' behavior abound in everyday
life.  Who makes you get up each morning and go to work?  What is
it that (only) government does that makes it possible for you to go
to the grocery store, or buy gasoline, or go to the movies, or sell 
your professional services, or any of the other countless aspects of
life that would go on with or without government?

> I find another aspect of anarchism pretty interesting, that is the level of
> cooperation and homogeneity it would require for people to work together.
> They have to give up various expressions of their religions and personal
> beliefs in order to participate, othewise they let the assholes house burn
> or whatever.

Why so?  I do not share a religion with any of my neighbors, yet I would
gladly help if one of their houses was on fire.  I do not share a 
religion with most of the people I work with (or race, gender and other
attributes); yet I have no difficulty working with most of them.  What 
"expressions" would I see from my neighbors were it not for the Wise and
Just Hand of Government?

Or do you mean I should be /Required/ to live and work with people whose
personal beliefs or religion I find offensive or repugnant?