On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Sunder wrote: > > > So what? Communism looks upon other forms of government as flawed, > > dangerous and abusive. > > Agreed. > > > Democracy looks upon other forms of government as > > flawed, dangerous and abusive. > > Actually it doesn't, it says you can do whatever you want until you > interfere with others actions. In other words if you want to start a > commune out in the desert that's fine. If you start trying to encompass > your neighbors you have a problem. Says you. See McCarthyism. While "Terrorist" is the recent horseman, in the 50's, it was in vogue to call your enemies communists, and the order of the day was to make the world safe for democracy by getting rid of communism. > Democarcy isn't interested in switching your views, only limiting your > actions to YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Says you. > BIG difference. Not. > > Um, what? Explain how people are supposed to work openly and equitably in > > a communist society when they're all running around cheating behind each > > others backs? Ditto for any other form of government. > > We're talking about CACL here, not communism. No, I asked you to explain how people are supposed to work openly and equitably in a communist society when they're running around cheating behind each others backs. You dodged that one by begging the question. My point which you've missed is that Democracy or any other form of government is guaranteed to fail when everyone's cheating, and that just by sprinkling doses of Democracy, you don't get a utopia any more than sprinkling doses of Communism or Socialism or Anarchy. To wit, that Democracy is not a moral system and does not prevent, nor avoid cheaters, rogues, theives, miscreats, or felons. Morals do not stem from the type of government that governs your country any more than they stem from religeon. > Unless of course you're > willing to accept my comment that any 'real' anarchy will reduce to a > socialism in short order. I neither accept nor deny your comment about real anarchies as I have not lived in one and have no way to judge. And neither do you, therefore, it would be wise to not make comments about systems you cannot know about first hand. > One of the primary statements of CACL philosophy is that the reason we > have corruption and abuse is because we have government. That if we do > away with government we will do away with such 'competition' for > authority. Where does it state this? Come on, show us the URL to something called "The Principles of CACL" or "A CACL Manifesto" or whatever the fuck. IMHO The reason we have corruption is that we are humans, and by nature humans like taking short cuts, and like making money, and some have flexible or purchaseable morals. Every type of government has corruption, but not because of the type of government, but rather because of human nature. Yes, it makes sense that if you do away with government you won't have competition for power, and thus lessen corruption, but other forms of corruption will surface. Scum usually doesn't sink to the bottom of the pot. > This experiment demonstrates that people will screw each other > irrespective of the government involvement. Now that is something I can agree to, although I'm uncertain as to which experiment you are pointing to. That people will screw each other is a given. That there are those who will uphold their morals regardless of any bribes is also true. Some people can't be bought, others can. Depends on one's morals, not government. > So, if the people are going > to lie, cheat, steal, etc. w/o government of what possible use is CACL > philosophy? For one thing, it would get rid of assholes climbing to power, abusing their offices and interns charity at gunpoint (aka taxes), borders and silly regulations such as the DMCA, and so on. There will also be a downside to this such as a lack of road building and an insane system of tolls, lack of centralized emergency response, and so on. But I suspect (and this is just my opinion) that the majority of our taxes do not go towards these purposes at all. Perhaps less than 10% do. > It doesn't reduce anything, if anything it increases the > potential for such actions because there is no constraint on individuals > actions. I disagree with this. If there is no power to abuse, no office to disrespect, no sheeple to mislead, such actions become more difficult. > If one neighbor kills another, what are the other neighbors going > to do? Same thing that happened in WWI and WWII. They'll form non-aggression pacts and support pacts so if that aggressor strikes again, the others will attack him. Or they may decide to do nothing if the other was a loud annoying asshole. Or they may decide to shun or banish him, or perphaps pool together to pay a merc to get rid of him, etc. That's up to the situation. > Hatfield and McCoy. Maybe, maybe not. Depends. But you can't say with certainty. Neither can I, so it's all conjecture. So why bother worrying about it? > > Since when does one's form of government indicate one's honesty? > > Exactly! Amazing. We actually agreed on something after all the wrangling... wow... > Therefore CACL philosophy can't work as presented. Again, I ask you, WHERE is CACL philosophy presented? I've yet to see such a manifesto or declaration of principles of CACL, or reference or any such thing. So far, the only mention of CACL revolves around you, and no one else is claiming otherwise. > For any sort > of anarchy to work the vast majority of people have to play by the rules > (ie honor their contract), here is clear evidence of how much a pipe dream > this is. As does communism, socialism, democracy, republics, fascism, chicago style mafia, imperial domains, insane clown possies, and so on. They're all pipe dreams until either someone has enough guns to enforce the system and deal with those who won't play by the rules, or a high enough majority decides to abide by it. Stating that anarchy is unworkable or workable is conjecture, and is meaningless until implemented and attempted. There is no such thing as "clear evidence" that anything is a pipe dream until it is tried and it fails. Communism for example is a prime example of such a failure. It's unworkable for precisely the same reasons that you claim anarchy is unworkable, and then some. A pure democracy is unworkable because people can vote themselves bread and circuses (or see two wolves and one mutton.) Socialism fails when the percentage of leeches gets too burdensome for the workers (as does communism.) Let's take this further: As there is no unlimited supply of resources, you need some sort of economic system to distribute resources to your population. If you reward based on need, not on production, then you'll find that the lazy are the majority and are the neediest, and as your producers produce less and less, the system collapses. Similarly with socialism, there comes a point where the percentage of those on welfare is too high to sustain, and the workers will refuse to be enslaved by the lazy. It too will fail. You can't have theoretical communism where all the workers contribute what they can and take what they needed because of the same reasons stated above. You can't have an immoral anarchy because it will deteriorate into the Sopranos. :) Can you have an anarchy where it's everyone for themselves (i.e. no morals?) Probably not for too long. Can you have a moral anarchy? In theory anything is possible. In real life you need some sort of enforcement.
