-Caveat Lector-
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:20:26 -0500 "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
-Caveat Lector-
>~~for educational purposes only~~
>[Title 17 U.S.C. section 107]
>Chaos Theory
>by Bob Murphy
>Throughout history, there have been countless arguments
>advanced to support the State. None of them has been
>valid.
Looking in the mirror, this is true. However, just as our founding
fathers did not have any idea of what they were actually starting, nor
where it would lead, many of these arguements were to the point, at least
at the time they were made. What is now needed is to learn from the
past, assess the present, and try something new for the future.
>Anarchy is the absence of government, both in political
>science and everyday usage (it is the first definition
>given by Webster's, e.g.).
Boy, I could enumerate a whole bunch of things here, but the one that
comes to mind is when Harry J. Anslinger (first head of what was to
become the DEA) pressured Dr. Ernest Fullerton Cook (Chairman of the 1937
Committee on Revision of the U.S. Pharmacopia) to leave marijuana off the
list of medically usefull drugs (it was in general use up to then for a
multitude of ailments). The first definition of anarchy should be: "The
theory that regards the absense of all direct or coersive government as a
political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary
association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized
society.". The placing of the "absense of government" as the first
definition leads the a gross missrepresentation of the real meaning of
anarchy.
>Chaos, in the context of social science, refers to lawlessness, or the
absence
>of a relative degree of regularity in human affairs.
>(I say a "relative degree" because, obviously, virtually
>all humans will always obey the 'rule' of, e.g., avoiding
>someone with leprosy or not slaughtering every female in
>sight. The 'laws' to which lawlessness is opposed are
>generally meant to imply the sometimes irksome rules
>necessary for a civil society.)
Thus the oft heard linking of the two e.g. "Anarchy means chaos". A not
so subtle brainwashing of the people.
>It should be immediately clear that anarchy and chaos
>are distinct things; you can have anarchy without chaos
>(e.g. groups of humans from the Stone Age if you
>subscribe to evolutionary accounts) and you can have
>chaos without anarchy (e.g. the French Revolution, if
>you subscribe to historical accounts). Any argument
>that conflates anarchy and chaos is thus invalid.
Yup, and so effective is that linking in the general public mind that the
young "Anarchists" espouse it as doctrine. You also do not have to go
back to the Stone Age for the rule of Anarchy. Most pre-European contact
peoples were living blissfully in anarchy. In the remote places of this
earth, some still do. Anthropology actively tries to cram these into
Marxist (or Proto-Marxist) categories, but they remain essentially
anarchist in spite of this.
>Also, the statists have had quite a time of stealing
>labels. The good guys used to be the "liberals." No
>longer. The good guys used to be the ones championing
>ever more "rights" for the individual. No longer. The
>very word liberty has been raped, and I have no doubt
>that libertarian can be perverted to mean whatever
>the ruling class wants it to mean.
Don't look now but it has.
>Aside from the danger of devious usage, there is also
>the legitimate distinction that must be made between
>those who advocate a "night watchman" state which
>merely enforces property rights and those who favor
>complete abolition of government. Many people of the
>former group refer to themselves as libertarians.
Couldn't a legitimate case be made that, in the act of establishing
cooperation between individuals and groups, a form of governance is
established? Be carefull not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Governance (in its pure form) is not a bad thing, and is probably
necessary. The idea of a "State", however, necessarily leads to putting
the "State" over the people who comprise the "State".
>Thus, to avoid any possible confusion, I advocate
>anarchy, pure and simple.
<snip>
>I should also mention that anarchy is not a good of
>itself; what I really desire is the truly free
>society. It's just that, in my opinion, only anarchy
>can achieve this. So, in terms of ethics or morality,
>I would say the highest end is freedom.
Could it be said that the goal is the maxium amount of individual freedom
possible while at the same time having to deal with the realities of
life?
>" You can't have absolute or total freedom, because if
>I'm free to kill you, then you can't be free to live."
>This is the sort of strawman logic you expect from
>sophomore philosophy majors (also prevalent at
>Hillsdale), which goes through only on a twisted
>definition of freedom.
Absolute freedom can only be achieved when one person lives their lives
with no interaction with anyone lese. Interaction means compromise, and
we are left to delineate the degree of compromise necessary to achieve a
minimalistic accord between individuals and groups.
>So, when I say I desire a society of total freedom,
>I mean a society where people respect the property
>of others
Ah, but there you have the seeds of our current, and in my opinion,
untennable, situation. "Private Property" or "Ownership" brings with it
a whole host of anti-freedom concepts that are currently grinding us
down. Let's see if we can learn to scrap these and move on.
>Finally, on to my main point. One of the most
>frequent statist tricks is the following: (1) The
>government assumes the responsibility of X. (2) The
>government screws up horribly. (3) The government
>cites the mess as proof of the necessity for
>government action.
>
>(For example, after every plane crash, people demand
>the FAA gets more funding. After the 'accidental'
>bombing of the Chinese Embassy, an ex-CIA agent
>wrote an Op-Ed piece explaining that budget hikes
>were necessary to update the maps. Imagine if
>Firestone, after the recall fiasco, explained that
>it needed to raise its prices in order to provide
>safer tires. I'm sure Ralph Nader would give them a
>thumbs-up.)
There is the second falacy. Capitalism brought us to this point; good
and bad. IMHO it is time to take a good look at the continued
cost/benefit of capitalism. We are in a position to scrap capitalism and
STILL maintain a good self-sustaining and continually evolving standard
of living for ALL people. Let's take advantage of it before it is too
late.
>So it may come as a surprise that business people in
>Mogadishu, the wrecked and lawless capital, are begging
>for a government. They would love to be taxed and would
>gladly let politicians meddle at least a bit in their
>affairs.
What they seem to lack is "...the cooperative and voluntary association
of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society"
that allows for the needed infrastructure.
I sniped the rest as it doesn't further the discussion. There are places
where the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups
is functioning, and it does lead to an organized society. Admittedly
these instances are very limited and usually classified as "Socialist
forms" lest they be looked at as in any way desireable. They are
'allowed' to exist because they are no threat to anyone. The moment they
gain enough positive attention they are shut down. They are "mere small
scale curiosities" in the "grand scheme of things". With the 'Fall of
the Wall' and the 'Taiwanization (this could be a word) of China',
Capitalism seems to have conquered the world. So, are we at the dawn of
a 'Great Age' or presiding over the final huge orgasm of the rape of the
world's resources?
I would postulate that it may be time to blow the whistle, time out the
game, and take a carefull look at what we are doing, where we are going
and what it is that we actually want. If we are trying to achieve a
"better life for all mankind" then we should really provide for
sustainability and the equal distribution of goods and products as a
basic premise. "From each according to their abilities, and to each
according to their needs" has gotten a bad rap from the capitalists, and
held up as a 'Communist/Socialist' doctrine much as we once held up the
boogyman to scare our kids. I don't think there is anyone who seriously
thinks we can sustain this pace for long. If the objective is to
continually stretch the limits of human endeavor, regardless of the
costs, we may well find ourselves in a collapsed and dying world before
too many generation have passed. Capitalism (maybe at this point we
should adopt the term Vampire Capitalism as a more accurate descriptor)
has fostered an "I've got mine, fuck you" attitude that is hardly
conducive to a "better world for all".
Jayson R. Jones
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
