From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Mon Mar 22 1999 - 09:50:13 MST
Billy Brown [bbrown@conemsco.com] wrote:
>Anarchist proposals are much more speculative than ideas for
>constitutional reform, which makes their actual results much more difficult
>to predict.
Hardly. David Friedman makes some very strong game theory arguments for
his anarcho-capitalist ideas producing a stable society thru negative
feedback, whereas any kind of government has positive feedback loops; if
the government takes more power it can more easily take power in future.
>Consequently, it would only be worthwhile to take a chance on
>such ideas if they seemed likely to give much better results.
Uh, they do seem likely to give much better results. That's why many of
us here think they're a good idea; or did, since a lot of the anarchists
on the list seem to have dropped out in the last few months of statist
invasion.
>Now, a limited constitutional republic can come fairly close to the
>libertarian ideal of complete personal liberty.
For one or two generations, if that; then it's doomed because the system
contains the seeds of its own downfall.
>A successful anarchist scheme would offer very similar results. You would
>pay voluntary fees for police protection instead of taxes, but you would
>still have to pay.
Why would you have to pay? If you don't want police 'protection' you just
buy a gun or two and protect yourself. That's not an option in a government
system... and anyway, private protection will be a lot cheaper than
compulsory tax-funded government 'protection'.
>You would have a larger choice of legal regimes, but the
>kinds of laws we really care about wouldn't exist in either scheme.
Sorry? What? Huh? Where do you get that idea from?
>In contrast, the most likely failure mode of a controlled anarchy scheme
>is simple, uncontrolled anarchy.
The whole point of anarcho-capitalism is that it doesn't have a 'likely
failure mode', because it has negative-feedback systems which begin to
act any time that the system starts to move from a stable state. This is
why I, as an engineer, like it.
>Those who have power take whatever they want
>from those who don't, which results in a society with all the problems of
>despotism and none of the advantages.
Only if you assume that a couple of hundred million well-armed anarchists
are just going to stand aside and hand over their money to a few thugs.
>The end result is very
>unpredictable - you could get anything from a tolerant democracy to a
>totalitarian regime, and you can get it in a matter of a few years.
Nonsense. Once an anarchist society gets into a stable state it is very
stable. The problem is getting from here to there, not staying there.
>So summarize: pure anarchy is a monster far worse than all but the most
>oppressive of governments.
So name a few anarchists who've killed tens of millions of their own
people on a whim? I didn't think you could.
>Any scheme of controlled anarchy is a stroll
>along the edge of an abyss, with no past experience to guide our way.
Oh, the horror! Life might be different to the way it is today! Gosh, I'm
so scared! Please Big Mummy, protect me from the evil anarchists and their
ungodly 'freedom'!
>I agree that we have problems here, but getting rid of government does
>nothing to solve them.
I'm not saying that getting rid of government would save DC; I'm saying
that government cannot survive in a future with the kinds of technologies
we talk about, unless it becomes a Borganism with complete control over
ever member of that society. Otherwise it's doomed.
>Besides, the situation isn't nearly as bad as you
>seem to think (your irate group has to include some very rare specialists),
That is scientists, technicians and military weapons experts; the very
people *most* likely to get pissed off by overbearing governments. McVeigh,
remember, is ex-military and was taught to blow things up by the US
government.
>(sensors are
>improving much faster than destructive technologies, for example).
'Mr President, sir, we've just detected a missile launch from Montana,
sensors say it's carrying a thermonuclear warhead. It'll be here in two
minutes.'
Yeah, those sensors are really going to help, I mean like at least you'll
have time to kiss your ass goodbye before it gets vaporized. That'll be
cool.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:21 MST