On Jan 12, 2008 5:33 AM, Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > I respectfully suggest that all anarchists leave the Libertarian Party, ...
Thanks for the suggestion. But, no, I'll stay, thankyouverymuch. > ... > Anarchists want to believe that it is possible and desirable to > reduce coercion to zero. Of course. Doesn't everyone -want- to beleive this? However I don't know a single anarchist who -does- beleive that humans can be made uniformly non-coercive. On the other hand, we are pretty interested in minimizing and getting rid of institutionalized coercion (that is, the state). > A society is regarded as a truce, with no > duty of mutual protection. By anarchists? First you (sort of) say that anarchists believe it's possible to have zero coercion, then you say that we regard society as a 'truce' and discuss 'mutual protection'. It can't be both ways - and in fact it's not. (Market) anarchists regard society as a web of individual relationships, just as we regard the market as a web of individual transactions. > Constitutionalists recognize that the goal is to protect rights and > reduce the restriction of them, and that to do that a society must > seek an optimum level of coercion, mutually agreed upon, that > balances the conflicts of rights that inevitably arise in social and > economic interaction, and that protect members from threats, > especially predators, whether foreign or domestic. A society is > regarded as a mutual defense pact, with duties as well as benefits. The phrase "optimum level of coercion, mutually agreed upon" just floors me. I *don't* agree, so it's not *mutual*. Also, the idea of someone agreeing to be coerced is nonsensical - that's like saying someone steps int he shower to dry off. > Anarchist positions and statements are a turn-off to the vast majority > of people, who regard such as either hopelessly naïve, misguided, or > even dangerous. So sorry. Deal. > They have a constitutionalist view of society, even if > not always a constitutionalist commitment to limited government. We need > to decide whether to include persons that make us look like kooks to > most of those whose votes we seek. Nice shift from an invitation to leave to a call for dis-inclusion. How exactly do you propose dis-including anarchists? -- Susan Hogarth http://www.colliething.com
