From: Raymond G. Van De Walker (rgvandewalker@juno.com)
Date: Wed May 26 1999 - 00:01:27 MDT
On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:47:55 -0500 "Billy Brown" <bbrown@conemsco.com>
writes:
>The other fundamental barrier I see is the problem of restraining the
>use of force in the anarchist society. The problem is that market
mechanisms
>are the only available means for restraining violence in an anarchy . .
.
<snip>
But the market is powerful. I read about historical and current anarchic
economic systems that regulate force by means of boycotts: The Law
Merchant did this, and still does. For example, if a government refuses
to repay foreign loans, my understanding is that currency traders then
boycott that country. The result is that the country becomes unable to
trade. Sovereignty is irrelevant.
Likewise, boycotts can sanction merchants and banks, under the
administration of commercial arbiters.
Boycotting sounds lame until you can' t buy food, shelter or ammunition.
>We've got some of the 'low-hanging fruit', but we are still far short
>of the point of diminishing returns.
Economically, I agree. Socially, I'm not so sure. I still see many
problems caused by the goal-free nature of our government. Our
government, for example, is not even sure that a long life is good, let
alone an intelligent electorate. What's the likely response to real
transhumans !?
<snip stuff about liberty not providing guidance>
> As a purely political philosophy this is actually a
>strength - it means that anyone who recognizes individual rights and
>human fallibility can take part in the system, regardless of the details
of
>their personal ethics.
Sure, but wishy-washy forms of utilitarian ethics offer wide appeal with
positive guidance thrown in for free. E.g. many arguments that
support libertarian reform are- utilitarian, not libertarian. E.g. when
someone
argues that we should be libertarian because it's more efficient, that's
a utilitarian
argument, because it promises more benefits from less work. Likewise
when someone promotes an ethical system as more promotable, that's a
variation of the efficiency argument, and thus- utilitarian.
I speculate that you might be a closet utilitarian! Consider yourself
outed!
Libertarian ethics -are- less likely to offend, but they also seem less
flexible at suggesting reforms, precisely because real libertarians are
pinned to a
framework of principles based on a theory of natural rights.
I think that ethics based on natural rights give base men rhetorical
advantages over honest men. I think that most people sense natural
rights by sentiment. Sentiments are real, but can easily be distorted by
rhetoric. Honest orators won't do this, but base orators will not
hesitate, and a political system based on natural rights is really too
tempting to honest men.
So, to me the whole structure of libertarian ethics looks perilously
flimsy, subject to manipulation by orators. And, in fact, I think that
this is what happened in the U.S. over the last 200 years.
Rational self-interest, on the other hand, is -much- harder to confuse.
>Actually, it would be illegal for you to build or operate a spacecraft
> you need a few tens of thousands of pages worth of permits and
paperwork
>before you'll be allowed to play with toys like that.
*sigh* I thought that it had gotten better with the legislation that
centralized it in the Dept. of Commerce, but you may well be right.
Ray Van De Walker rgvandewalker@juno.com
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:48 MST