On 1/10/2015 12:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 1/9/2015 3:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* meekerdb <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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]> <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[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?
That's a good question, and the answer supports my point. When you poll people and ask if
they think it's right to wiretap people suspected of plotting crimes the majority say
yes. So in a way the Constitution informs and bolsters people's understanding of the
importance of freedom from government surveillance. If they were just morally offended by
surveillance then they would be equally exercised about AT&T, Google, Time-Warner,
Verizon, and a dozen other corporate organizations that spy on them. But because they
know the Constitution forbids the government from doing it they are much MORE offended
when the government does it.
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.
But it did. The NSA is only allowed to track who-calls-who, not what is said. The courts
recently ruled that putting a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant was
unconstitutional. Would you rather live in a nation with no Constitutional prohibition of
unreasonable search and seizure or with one?
Brent
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
