From: The Low Golden Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 22 1997 - 18:45:29 MST
On Feb 22, 11:04pm, "J. de Lyser" wrote:
} Sure i just meant to point out that a rational combination of the two could
} work better than either one on its own. Leaving some minimalized state-like
} instrument alive if you will, for those cases where the free market does
} fail. Some sort of guarantee rather than depending on a chance . But then
Yes, this might be ideal. Key word: 'ideal'. What will actually
happen? History and theory suggest that a small government will try
to turn into a big government. The US Constitution wasn't that bad, but
we've drifted out of it. Maybe it needed bigger letters. "AND CONGRESS
HAS ONLY THESE POWERS WE MEAN IT."
} Its a wonderful system, yet it's not without flaws.
Well, la. The unflawed system is one where everyone does what I want,
as John Clark says. Unflawed for me, that is. Alas, you all seem to
have other plans. Thesis: a universe with finite access to resoures and
more than one independent actor cannot reach political utopia.
} Moderate 'social' measures have their function. They are to protect the
} part of the population that lies between that 75% and the top 0.0001% from
Moderate social measures have a history of multiplying beyond the
necessary. Tradeoffs. Theory says they're not worth it, at least as
far as efficiency goes.
} less bureaucratic and with a much less influencial state. BUT: With a swift
} and sure instrument left intact to act ONLY in crisis situations, with a
} rapid concentration of power and resources the scope of that which the
} Roman consuls had.
Alas, who gets to define the crisis? I do have an attraction to the
Roman system, though, I don't know why. The oddities of having 2
consuls, as well as tribunes with veto powers, perhaps. Also the fact
that they had one-year terms. Perhaps such a system wouldn't be so bad.
} am i a democratic semi-anarcho/monarcho-capitalist ?
monarcho or minarcho?
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Paranoia is what the lazy call wisdom.
(Doh. Now I know why this confuses people -- English syntax actually
seems ambiguous. What I mean is that lazy people refer to wise
self-defense as paranoia. But now I'm not sure whether the line says
that, or whether it's saying the lazy refer to paranoia as wisdom, which
would be confusing. Help?)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:11 MST