From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 13:52:20 MDT
YP Fun wrote:
>
> me: Socialist-Democratic-Capitalist.
>
> --- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> wrote:
> > > I can see anarcho-capitalist leaning, but anti
> > globalization? Being against
>
> I don't know what is wrong with a international
> court and world trade.
First off, I didn't say that, so please get your quotes right.
>
> One set of rules for everyone on the planet.
> Democracy is sweeping the world. Democracy, socialism
> and capitalism seems to go hand in hand.
Socialism and capitalism go hand in hand? Exqueeze me?
>
> What is anarchy? I don't see how a state can exist
> and function without a government. How will you
> protect the citizens from the criminals? How do
> solve simple problems like transportation, clean
> water,
> advance technological developement, electricity???
You are right, a state can't exist without a government. Many people
would like to live that way.
In the US, we've been solving those four particular problems with and
without government interference for quite a while now. Clean water works
well at a community public run level. I would be very concerned about a
country that thinks you need a nationwide agency in charge of delivering
clean water to everybody. Electricity was delivered by free markets for
many decades before government got involved, and still does in many
areas quite well.
In the US, the crime rate is lowest where there are few police and
private citizens are responsible for their own protection. In areas of
the US where crime is high, private citizens are prevented from
protecting themselves and police are ubiquitous, espeically when they
are not needed, and five times more likely to kill an innocent person.
Transportation in the US has been best solved by private industry
providing the means to individuals, with communities building and
maintaining the rights of way, and advanced technology is manufactured
and developed by private industry.
>
> Communism is practically dead. China and Cuba
> are surpose to be communist. I think of the two
> Cuba is more true to communism we will see how long
> that last.
As long as Castro lives.
>
> China scares the shit out of me.
>
> Problem with communism is that human beings can not
> be trusted. We are inherently selfish. Many communist
> countries turn into fascist oligopolies, when a few
> people in the government has power. Besides
> proproganda and indoctrination and censorship which
> I believe are critical to sustaining a communist
> state,
> prevents a communist state from improving. When no
> one is allowed to criticize the state how can it
> improve.
Not so. The inherent problem with communism isn't that humans can't be
trusted, but that communists don't trust people to take care of their
own business. Capitalism and democracy both work because they both
inherently trust individuals to take care of their own business
themselves. Communism and socialism occur where a large enough percent
of the population deludes itself into believing that they are incapable
of doing things themselves, and they become deluded by demagogues
seeking power.
The only place people can't be trusted is that they can't be trusted to
busybody other people for those people's own best interest. This is
Acton's Law. For further reading, read my essay at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom/files/itsaboutthetrust.htm
which was published in The Libertarian Enterprise last year.
>
> >
> > First off, I didn't say anarcho-capitalist, I said
> > anarchist, with
> > socialist leanings. If you inspected the contents
>
> I am not sure I understand. How can you believe in
> socialism (government) and anarchy (anti-government).
That is a good question. The general thing about them is that they
generally believe in Proudhon's Law: Property is Theft, and therefore
conclude that capitalism is simply another type of archy that they need
to be an- about. While they dismiss Leninism as state capitalism (an odd
term) they look at Marxism as a fascist imposition of socialist
principles. Proudhon was essentially against forcing people to be
socialist via a state mechanism, though he seems to have had no problem
with individual or mob action to achieve the same goal.
So, while US-type libertarians generally view capitalist free markets in
a non-state laissez faire setting, with subgroups choosing to be locally
socialist in a voluntary basis as they see fit within the greater
capitalist plenum, european libertarians and anarchists generally see
the reverse: everybody being happily socialist, with the odd rude
capitalist or group of capitalists voluntary working with each other in
an ad hoc basis, but not 'forcing' any 'true' anarchists to participate
in free markets.
For example, you could put signs on the borders of your 'property'
saying that you are using this space for growing food, which others can
respect or not as they see fit, but they cannot be bound by any forced
imposition of 'property' lines like fences or walls.. You obviously see
how unworkable this is.
Now, I'm avowedly a US type libertarian with a slight leaning to the
right, so don't take any of the previous statements as my own, I'm just
describing what these anarchists are claiming.
> > If a developing nation successfully becomes an
> > industrialized liberal
> > democracy, they believe it becomes lost to 'real'
> > socialist revolution.
> > As an example, if unemployment in the West Bank
> > dropped to less than
> > 10%, do you think that there would be anywhere near
> > the level of
> > terrorist violence we've seen in the last few years?
> > There wouldn't,
> > Israel cut Palestinians off from jobs in Israel in
> > response to bombings
>
> I don't think that Israel cut Palestinian off of
> jobs from Israel. Palistinians definitely suffer
> but not having a home or land or freedom of movement
> is a much bigger problem than unemployment.
True, but if you have no income, you are far more likely to agree to
become a militant, especially if the reward for suicide is $50,000. When
the PA had increased the bounty to $25k, they started getting
volunteers, but when they doubled it to $50k last year the number of
recruits skyrocketed. I have proposed to my congressmonsters that a
clause be added to both Palestinian and Israeli aide packages that
subtracts $5 million for each civilian killed on the other side by their
forces. This would obviously eliminate the incentive the Palestinian
authority has to fund suicide bombings, and would demonstrate that the
US regards Palestinian and Israeli lives as equal worth. However, I have
not heard back from any of them on this. If anybody wants to suggest the
same to their own congresspeople, please do so.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:54 MST