From: Webb_S (Webb_S@bls.gov)
Date: Thu Dec 17 1998 - 06:59:08 MST
Dick.Gray@bull.com wrote:
>>It's hard to say exactly. Perhaps that humans are infinitely adaptable,
>>allowing them to switch PPFs or jobs or whatever in a completely rational
>>manner.
>
>That's no part of anarcho-capitalism as I understand it. Smells like a red
>herring to me.
It seems to me that anarcho-capitalism deals primarily with healthy,
rational, capable individuals with acquisitive tendencies. I'm concerned at
how the unhealthy, non-materialistic, and emotional (i.e., non-rational)
will fare under this system.
As a semi-related comment, I've noticed that anarcho-capitalists seem to
spend and awful lot of time *planning* the alternatives to government.
Anarcho-capitalists also seem overly confident that these alternatives
structures will work, which seems to mirror to an unsettling degree the sort
of confidence that early socialist thinkers had in their models. If
anarcho-capitalism really is based upon spontaneous order, we should expect
the solutions to non-governance to be as unpredictable and remarkable as the
patterns we see in natural systems.
>That'd be an interesting project. But it wouldn't convince anyone who
>wasn't willing to be convinced. We all have the history of failed
>interventionist policies before our eyes - there's a real-time model, if
>you will - yet the True Believers are still parroting the same tired
>nostrums (basically, we need more of the same) as if they've learned
>nothing. Which they haven't, because they don't want to.
Or maybe they just don't see the status quo as a failure in the sense that
you do? If an anarcho-capitalist society were really that much better, I
think you'd have no trouble winning over the masses. The best way to speed
the death of the state would be to set up a fabulously successful
anarcho-capitalist region as a model for the rest of the world.
>>Certain Asian cultures have a much different perception of freedom
>>and the value of freedom than Americans do.
>
>No doubt, and that's precisely why they live in an economic quagmire.
Perhaps they value other things more than material success?
>"Extreme" means nothing. Is my view correct, or is it not? I don't care how
>most people "feel". I wish most people would "feel" less and think more.
But the question, "Are you coerced?" is subjective because it depends on
what a given individual wants versus what they are required to do. Whether
your view is correct for said individual depends on how they feel.
>To the extent that you're able to direct the use of people's property
>against their will, you *are* in power. That includes using my money to
>build a system I don't want to pay for. Take responsibility. It's
>therapeutic.
We've gone around this track several times already. While I'm concerned
that some people don't want to pay for what I'm doing, there are others that
appreciate what I'm doing. Overall there is not sufficient motivation to
quit my job just yet. If you want things to move more quickly, vote for
libertarian representatives and encourage others to do the same.
Steven
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:02 MST