>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 04 03:59:01 2001
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: ereuter-erikreuter:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 79899 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 03:59:00 -0000
Received: from ool-18be84c6.dyn.optonline.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by yiwen.pair.com with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 03:59:00 -0000
Received: from ereuter by ool-18be84c6.dyn.optonline.net with local (Exim 3.12 #1
(Debian))
id 15ozf1-0005YU-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:58:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:58:59 -0400
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Disconnect the Dots
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, Oct 03, 2001
at 10:46:07PM -0400
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1738
Lines: 38
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 08:00:00AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> I am having trouble imaging why one would choose to adopt this belief.
> It seems useful only to close one's mind to future possibilities and
> as ammunition with which to insist that the rest of the world must
> adopt the "ultimate, best system" or cease to exist. There's a word
> for the idea that the "ultimate, best system" is known and insisting
> that others embrace it -- fundamentalism. As Gautam pointed out, it's
> not a very nice label to apply to anyone these days, but it fits,
> completely.
No. Fundamentalists accept no alternatives. I'd LOVE to see a superior
alternative. I LIKE new, better ideas. Show me one and I'll be
happy. Not so for a fundamentalist.
> No matter how well-dressed in intellectual arguments it might be, such
> thinking is arrogant and close-minded in the extreme...
No. It may be true of fundamentalism, but not of the argument I am
making. "My" argument can be proven wrong. I am open-minded about it.
> while excusing one from the challenge to continually reinvent society
> and further understand the nature of things.
Absolutely not. On the contrary, I DO look for ways to reinvent society
and to understand the nature of things. I haven't found a major
improvement to the liberal capitalist democracy.
> For myself, I imagine that humanity can achieve even greater liberty
> than the revolution of 1776 created.
How, exactly?
> The Internet itself screams this to me, as it operates largely outside
> of established politics and economics, fitting into no historically
> established model of organization and regulation. It is neither
> democratic, communist, totalitarian or anything else invented by
> humans.
How is the Internet an alternative to liberal capitalist democracy?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikreuter.com/
