2015-01-09 22:08 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>: > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> 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 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. >> > > That's a bit too fast. I agree that anarchy is the absence of a ruler, but > hierarchies don't imply rulers. >
They imply it... because if they don't that's not hierarchy, that means you're on equal ground. > They can exist purely out of the self-interest of its participants, who > retains exit rights. A relationship with a boss is not coercive, if you can > stop working for him. > If he's higher up in a hierarchy, that means he has some coercive power that put him higher than you... what makes you think you'll have the capacity to stop working for him ? I agree if you were on equal ground any of you could decide to stop collaborating... but here it's not a collaboration... > > >> Using anarchy as synonym of chaos is a mistake, it's anomie, not anarchy. >> > > I think we all agree. > > >> >> >>> 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. >> > > Maybe you're payed to participate in the hierarchy and decide that your > salary makes it worthwhile for you. How is that coercion? > Quoting the site I've linked in a previous email: "For example, there have been arguments for slavery and monarchy (i.e. dictatorship) rooted in consent. Do we really want to say that the only thing wrong with fascism or slavery is that people do not consent to it? Sadly, some right-wing "libertarians" come to that conclusion - See more at: http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionB1#sthash.2eK95cNv.dpuf"; > > >> >> >>> 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... at >> the moment that your boss has coercive capacity against you, what will make >> you have the capacity to go against it ? >> > > You can quit. > > It depends how much coercive capacity you did accept in the first place for him to be your *boss*. > We're talking about hierarchy here, not collaborative working for the >> benefit of both that you seem to conflate. >> > > Consider the ancient master-apprentice relationship. The master gets very > cheap labour, the apprentice gets to learn a trade. It's a hierarchical > relationship with mutual benefit. > It's not equal footing, so long as the master is an honest person, it could work... but the world is not filled with care bear.. and also the same mutual benefit can be better achieved on equal ground without the master-servant relation. Quentin > Many more examples could be given. > > Cheers > Telmo. > > >> >> 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) >> >> -- >> 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.
