On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/10/2015 2:00 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/9/2015 3:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* meekerdb <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 2:45 PM >> *Subject:* Re: Democracy >> >> On 1/9/2015 1:08 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* meekerdb <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 12:25 PM >> *Subject:* Re: Democracy >> >> On 1/9/2015 4:55 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> Money becomes coercive under statism, because it becomes illegal to use >> alternative currencies, operate outside of the banking and taxation system >> and so on. >> >> >> >>Banks used to issue their own script and in principle anyone could do >> it. The trouble with anarcho-capitalism is that there's nothing to prevent >> a group from organizing, forming a "government", raising an army a >> conquering people around them. In fact that's exactly the arc of history. >> If you want anarchy you can go to Syria or Somalia right now. >> >> What you describe is not the political philosophy of anarchy; what you >> describe is life under warlords, and the susceptibility of anarchy to such >> organized groups of thugs. >> >> Functioning anarchy would require a level of individual ethics that >> does not yet exist (or at least is not widespread). Anarchy is vulnerable >> to being destroyed by thuggery and mayhem; no doubt about that; however it >> should not be confused with that heartless outcome. >> >> >> >>Every form of government will work well with perfect people. >> >> That is side-stepping the point that some forms of social organization >> require a much higher degree of civic involvement than others do. >> >> >> Exactly, and anarchy that functions as well as constitutionally limited >> democracy would require angels. >> > > This overestimates the importance of things written in a piece of paper > and underestimates the importance of social norms, culture and education. > > The reason why I don't go and loot my neighbours is not because a piece > of paper says I can't, or even because I am afraid of the police. Remove > this too things and I still wouldn't do it. I suspect everyone > participating in this discussion is the same. Why? > > On the other hand, the Weimar constitution was powerless to stop the > nazis, and the American constitution appears powerless to stop the NSA. > > > And I think you underestimate it. It is something any citizen can point > to as a norm. Notice that everyone who complains about the NSA's invasion > of privacy cites the Constitution as evidence their complaint is justified. > That is true, but it's far from the only argument. Now my question is: do you figure that people think that invasion of privacy without a warrant is wrong think that because of what the constitution says, or do you figure invasion of privacy offends their sense of morality and then they look for arguments to justify their position and find the constitution? > Without it they would have to give a long argument based the prior > abuses that the founding fathers used to to support the right to privacy. > This would be a good argument had the Constitution actually succeeded in preventing total surveillance from the government on its own people. But it didn't. I have to admit something though. I used to work in a lab not far from Charlie Hebdo. Seeing the terrorist act in a very familiar setting is incredibly disturbing. It made me understand the excesses after 9/11 a bit better. A part of me feels that primordial "how dare they bring their medieval rules and behaviours to my backyard". It's human, no doubt. Telmo. > > Brent > > -- > 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.
