http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB1
2015-01-09 14:58 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>: > > > 2015-01-09 14:55 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> 2015-01-09 13:55 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2015-01-09 13:22 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:50 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > What would you suggest in place of a democracy? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we were starting from scratch I would suggest Anarcho-Capitalism, >>>>>> I think it would be far superior to democracy, but unfortunately we are >>>>>> not >>>>>> starting from scratch and so it would be very difficult to get there from >>>>>> here; >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought of writing something very similar to this but then decided >>>>> not to bother. Not because of Bruno -- he is very respectful of other >>>>> people's opinions and always argues the ideas without resorting to name >>>>> calling. >>>>> >>>>> For some reason that I quite never understood, Anarcho-Capitalism >>>>> (which is just an idea) seriously offends people, to a level that makes me >>>>> think that it goes against the dogmas of some invisible religion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Anarcho-capitalism is bad... because it has nothing to do with >>>> anarchism in the first place except the abolition of states... as >>>> accumulation of wealth is kept under some hands, hierarchy is kept, and so >>>> Anarcho-capitalism can only leads to the richer are the rulers... money is >>>> coercion. >>>> >>> >>> Money becomes coercive under statism, because it becomes illegal to use >>> alternative currencies, operate outside of the banking and taxation system >>> and so on. >>> >>> Under anarchy, you and me are free to create our own currency or our own >>> arrangement if the dominant one no longer serves us. For example, if the >>> rich become to rich, they run the risk that the majority will opt out >>> >> > If because they are rich, and already have coercive power due to that > wealth, it will be difficult for you to opt out of it... and as > anarcho-capitalism has no way to prevent that, it's doomed unless people > are care bears which they're not... especially utlra wealthy people. > > >> of that currency and start trading goods under a new one. So the levels >>> of confiscation and transference of wealth from the poor to the rich that >>> we are witnessing today are only possible by state coercion. >>> >>> The absurd levels of wealth inequality that we have today are only >>> possible by coercion: by central banks printing new money that they lend >>> only to the 1%, by "too big too fail" bailouts, by a banking system that >>> can operate on fake money allowing for the rich people to leverage their >>> investments so much that the game is rigged. These things are not a >>> property of "money", they are a property of "state". >>> >>> I find the idea that the goal of Anarchy is to make hierarchies >>> disappear bizarre. >>> >> >> Because that's what it means, like monarchy means "one" ruler, anarchy is >> the absence of ruler, the absence of hierarchical authority. Using anarchy >> as synonym of chaos is a mistake, it's anomie, not anarchy. >> >> >>> Hierarchies are, in many cases, an excellent organisational tool. >>> >> >> They could be, but they implies coercion, because hierarchy implies >> someone upper in the hierarchy can decide for someone lower... if it's not >> the case, then it's not a hierarchical authority. >> >> >>> I would say that the goal of Anarchy is to remove the compulsory >>> participation in hierarchies -- like we have in democracy. But if I accept >>> that you are more capable than me in some endeavour and decide to accept >>> you as the boss for our mutual benefit, why not? This is not coercion. >>> >> >> It is not until you accept it and you have been meant to accept it... >> > > read: It is not until you accept it and how you have been made to accept > it... > > > >> at the moment that your boss has coercive capacity against you, what will >> make you have the capacity to go against it ? We're talking about hierarchy >> here, not collaborative working for the benefit of both that you seem to >> conflate. >> >> Regards, >> Quentin >> >> >>> >>> Telmo. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Quentin >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> but don't let the word "anarchy" scare you, it just means lack of >>>>>> government. Chaos necessarily implies anarchy but anarchy does not >>>>>> necessarily imply chaos. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good laws are no different from anything else, if you want to >>>>>> maximize something then make it a commodity and sell it on the free >>>>>> market. >>>>>> But nobody does that for laws very much , that's why there are far more >>>>>> good cars than good laws. In a world with minimal or no government >>>>>> Privately Produced Law (PPL) would have Private Protection Agencies >>>>>> (PPA's) >>>>>> to back them up. Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent >>>>>> arbitrator agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened. >>>>>> Something like that can exist today. When companies sign complicated >>>>>> contracts they sometimes also agree on who will arbitrate it if >>>>>> differences >>>>>> in interpretation happen. Nobody wants to get caught up in the slow, >>>>>> expensive court system run by governments. >>>>>> >>>>>> The arbitrator is paid by the case, and because he is picked by both >>>>>> sides, it's in his interest to be as just as possible. If he favored one >>>>>> side over >>>>>> another or made brutal or stupid decisions he would not be picked >>>>>> again and would need to look for a new line of work. Unlike present day >>>>>> judges and >>>>>> juries, justice would have a positive survival value for the >>>>>> arbitrator. >>>>>> >>>>>> All parties would have a reason to avoid violence if possible. The >>>>>> disputing parties would not want to turn their front yard into a war >>>>>> zone, >>>>>> and violence is expensive. The successful protection agencies would be >>>>>> more >>>>>> interested in making money than saving face. Most of the time this would >>>>>> work so I expect the total level of violence to be less than in the >>>>>> nation >>>>>> state system we have now, but I'm not such a utopian as to suggest it >>>>>> will >>>>>> drop to zero. Even when force is not used the implicit threat is always >>>>>> there, another good reason to be civilized. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that I'm not talking about justice only for the rich. If >>>>>> a rich man's PPA makes unreasonable demands (beatings, sidewalk justice, >>>>>> I >>>>>> insist >>>>>> on my mother being the judge if I get into trouble,etc) it's going to >>>>>> need one hell of a lot of firepower to back it up. That kind of an army >>>>>> is >>>>>> expensive >>>>>> because of the hardware needed and because of the very high wages it >>>>>> will need to pay its employees for an extremely dangerous job. To pay for >>>>>> all >>>>>> this they will need to charge their clients enormous fees severely >>>>>> limiting their customer base and that means even higher charges. They >>>>>> could >>>>>> never get >>>>>> the upper hand, because the common man's PPA would be able to >>>>>> outspend a PPA that had outrageous demands and was just for the super >>>>>> rich. >>>>>> A yacht cost much more than a car, yet the Ford motor Company is far >>>>>> richer >>>>>> than all the yacht builders on the planet combined. >>>>>> >>>>>> No system can guarantee justice to everybody all the time but you'd >>>>>> have the greatest chance of finding it in Anarcho-Capitalism. In a >>>>>> dictatorship one man's whim can lead to hell on earth, I don't see how 40 >>>>>> million Germans could have murdered 6 million Jews in a >>>>>> Anarcho-Capitalistic world. Things >>>>>> aren't much better in a Democracy, 51% can decide to kill the other >>>>>> 49%, nothing even close to that is possible in Anarchy, even >>>>>> theoretically. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Nazis where an extreme case of statism and collectivism, and they >>>>> were democratically elected. Let's not pretend otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In general, the desire not to be killed is much stronger than the >>>>>> desire to kill a stranger, even a Jewish stranger. Jews would be willing >>>>>> to >>>>>> pay as much as necessary, up to and including their entire net worth not >>>>>> to >>>>>> be killed. I doubt if even the most rabid anti Semite would go much >>>>>> beyond >>>>>> 2%. As a result the PPA protecting Jews would be much stronger than the >>>>>> one >>>>>> that wants to kill them. In Anarchy, for things that are REALLY important >>>>>> to you (like not getting killed) you have much more influence than just >>>>>> one >>>>>> man one vote. >>>>>> >>>>>> I can't give you a iron clad guarantee that some Private Protection >>>>>> Agency won't switch from being a protector to being an oppressor, but I >>>>>> can't give you an iron clad guarantee that the US Army will not overthrow >>>>>> the government and set up a military dictatorship either. They certainly >>>>>> have the means to do so if they wished to. I don't think that's very >>>>>> likely >>>>>> to happen, but it's far more likely than the sort of organization I'm >>>>>> talking about doing it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. Unfortunately, realising that the "guarantees" afforded by >>>>> statism stand on nothing, and are probably much weaker than structures >>>>> created by networks of self-interest, requires a level of abstract >>>>> thinking >>>>> that the majority of people are either incapable of, or unwilling to >>>>> embark >>>>> on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The instant a PPA starts acting in a totalitarian way customers would >>>>>> abandon it , shut off its money supply and stop its cancerous growth in >>>>>> the >>>>>> bud. That is a powerful tool that we don't have today, with the US Army >>>>>> you >>>>>> are forced to keep sending it money through taxes even if you hate what >>>>>> it's doing. >>>>>> >>>>>> But this is all theoretical, as I say we are such a enormously long >>>>>> way from Anarcho-Capitalism that it may be too late and it's just not >>>>>> practical to get to there from here. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately I agree. Statism is a very powerful cultural virus, >>>>> because it generates a huge population of dependent people. It takes >>>>> control of the minds of the citizens from a young age, using Prussian army >>>>> educational technology, teaching dependence and doing it's best to kill >>>>> critical thought and creativity. It's a technology designed to create >>>>> armies and it's very good at that. >>>>> >>>>> War is the natural talent of nation states. It's what they where >>>>> invented for and it's the only thing they can really do well. With this >>>>> inclination comes an addiction to growth, that creates ecological problems >>>>> that it tries to solve through more statism. And round we go. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe starting from scratch will be possible one day, either in >>>>> another planet or in another computation. >>>>> >>>>> Telmo. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John K Clark >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> . >>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy >>>> Batty/Rutger Hauer) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy >> Batty/Rutger Hauer) >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
