>From: Paul Hughes <paul@planetp.cc>
>Subject: Re: Bugs in Anarchy was: Bugs in Free-Markets.
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 00:47:00 -0700
>
>John Clark wrote:
>
> > The decision was certainly unjust and stupid, but I remind you it was
>not made
> > by a corporation, it was made by a judge appointed by a politician who
>got
> > the job because of his white teeth, pleasant smile, and really nice
>haircut.
>
>So the question to you John, is what is your alternative? Without the
>judge and the
>legal system and the Constitution, how would Eric Corley and the MPAA work
>out their
>differences? And in such a system, is there such a thing as free-speech?
>Or is it
>because the MPAA has more money than Eric Corley they decide what can be
>said and
>what can't? After all it was you who said that the *feature* of
>free-markets is that
>such freedoms are open to the highest bidder. Does this mean that that the
>rich
>corporations who have the most money to purchase such commodities as
>free-speech,
>mean that the rest of us loose that right?
>
> >From where I'm sitting, you've painted yourself into a corner. If you
>can get out of
>this one, my hats will be off to you, as you will have successfully
>answered all of
>my reservations about free-markets.
>
>I eagerly await your answers, or anyone else who thinks they are up to it.
>
>Paul Hughes
>http://planetp.cc/
>
For purposes of maximum comprehension, it is probably useful to keep various
positions being expressed distinct and separate. There are quite a few
"anarchists" who lean in the direction of saying that if we just eliminated
the state, then everything would take care of itself and we would reach
utopia. To them, I pose the question, "Why now? Why not any of the ten
thousand times before when a state dissolved in ruin?"
Somalia proved this past decade that even without any state at all people
are still capable of doing business and surviving - with fairly high
expenses in terms of hiring private guards, etc., but without crushing taxes
or stupid laws and bureaucrats. However, this probably wouldn't have worked
where there were major historic ethnic animousities, as in former
Yugoslavia.
Most anarchists historically have made positive proposals as to the proper
organization of society. Some of them have done rather well, at least until
stomped out of existence by overwhelming force - eg., the Spanish
anarcho-syndicalists (who have reemerged with the fabulously successful
Mondragon cooperative) or the Ukranian anarchists who came very close to
defeating the Bolsheviks in Russia.
As Spencer MacCallum points out in his seminal "The Art of Community," the
state likely arose because of a lack of social/economic technology
sufficient to peacefully resolve disputes. I would contend that we have
sufficient technology today to get rid of it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:24 MDT