Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 2 of 18
I haven't read the dispossesd, but if we are going to reduce the success of a system of anarchy to that of a change in paradigm introduced through some standard philosophy, I have a couple of questions,
how do you have a standard school system or else communal curriculum that imparts a standard philosophy if you choose not to have any standaradized education,for one
and two, if you are going to embrace the possibility that people are culturally influenced in their thinking, then why is a desire to do violence assumed to be so rooted? Couldn't that also be an issue of paradigm, and couldn't that be changed by new embodiment of communal values?
You could say that we have such values now and they do no good, but I'd argue that they are mostly schizzophrenic, even under a government with a somewhat standardized education system.
I will look up the dispossed and the other one mentioned though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HKC
I realize your post was directed to SignyM - but I wanted to reply.
A lot of what we take for granted in our current lifestyle - roads, cars, computers, the internet - is only possible b/c of large scale capital investment either by business or by government, or usually by both.
I have read The Dispossessed - it's one of my favorite books - but the philosophy and lifestyle LeGuin wrote about are very much different from our current one.
The Dispossessed - and a little thought - forms the basis of my main objection to FremD's preferred vision of the anarchic society - he seems to think it would be just like today - except without government and of course everyone has a gun, with the most important part being everyone has a gun (or three). An anarchic society with everything we have today but without government just isn't a possibility - if only b/c business will create the power structures that will eventually run people. And so there goes the anarchy.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Basically, what the typical anarchist is talking about is Marxism. Although “anarchy” gets labeled solely “right-wing” in practice breaks down to either dueling warlords or Marxism. The idea behind Marxism is exactly what HK is talking about. Marx‘s utopia was a society of small agrarian communities living in harmony without government or the “consumer culture.” Karl Marx was the original anarchist, so to speak.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
A l/a world would very much be like life outside Alliance control. In fact, many libertarians are attracted to the Firefly verse precisely because it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well.
It ain't perfect. You gotta stay on your toes, outrun dangerous gangs (be they organized or not), and fight bullies. There are no guarantees, and life really sucks when you are hungry and/or injured.
It's definitely not a lifestyle for everyone. I understand if people don't like this lifestyle, and I wouldn't want to impose it on them. That is one reason I stopped being involved in Libertarian politics. I mean, I vote for the poetry of it, but I have no wish to force onto others what they don't want.
--------------------------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
--Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"it depicts a hypothetical libertarian world so well"
The probem is, such a society can only exist as a parasite on a larger, non-anarchic society. It depends on that society for high-investment goods - like ships and medicines - that it can't manufacture for itself.
But at least the writers of Firefly figured that out.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And then there this example: You get nailed on the freeway (Say, who built the freeway? Who owns it?) by some drunk driver who gets killed.
Theoretically:
The freeway was built by the folks who own the freeway, having either bought the property or negotiated a lease agreement with the owners. You pay to use it, just like you pay income and gas taxes to use the government-built freeways.
You do have insurance (you can still contract for most anything), which provides ambulance and medical service to the specifications of your policy. They are vetted by companies (see Consumer Reports and Washington checkbook, but not non-profit) who provide their references for a fee (probably to the insurance company). Those who do badly go out of business.
I'm not sure that death absolves one of liability and the need for compensation in the Libertarian world, so the drunk's estate may be liable. This assumes that there is a function available to determine the driver was drunk. That's also a question.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is always true, whether you have government or not.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
If "justice" is bought with a gun doesn't the guy who can buy the biggest gun win?
Government is not only the biggest gun, but the only gun. Most political scientists define government as a monopoly of force. America is the only country on earth (correct me if I am wrong) that challenges this monopoly slightly by allowing its citizenry to own as many arms as they want, short of the really powerful ones.
So in other words, if we have to be ruled by a gang with the biggest gun, then we institute a system by which we have some say in who gets to hold that gun.
Thomas Hobbes defined freedom as power in small denominations. I think if you substitute "force" for "power," you get this:
Government = force in large denominations
Lib / Anar = force in small denominations
You also get this corollary:
Government = violence in large denominations
Lib / Anar = violence in small denominations
You get force and violence either way, there is no escaping it. It is just a matter of whether you prefer it all in one package (Alliance) or in little bits (outer planet gangsters).
--------------------------
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
--Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
You still haven't managed to say how the anarchic society can be self-sufficient, except at the most primitive level, which would be the level able to be achieved by very small groups of people.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME