[105231] in Cypherpunks
Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sun Nov 8 22:47:31 1998
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:21:36 -0600 (CST)
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Forwarded message:
> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 21:59:18 -0500
> From: Michael Hohensee <mah248@nyu.edu>
> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
> Ah, but governments are just bunches of people. The problem with
> government (which is just an organization) is that problematic people
> use them to cause problems for others. That's why I'm against *having*
> such organizations. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
I'm still waiting for one of you guys to explain in detail how it works on a
day to day basis...
> It's about the same thing. Of course, for it to do this, it must wield
> sufficient power to exact that retribution, which, as I've been saying
> over and over (as you've noticed) is the problem.
Well I'll tell you this. You don't have a hope in hell of getting
anarcho-anything to work. People are not going to bust their butts simply to
see it get yanked away by a bunch of unregulated monoploies.
> But they can only enforce laws after they have been broken. (assuming
No, they can refuse to pass laws that don't infringe the basic principles of
the society. They can pass laws that take a conservative (not in the
political sense but in the wary manner) approach. It takes a system that has
sufficient check's and balances that no one group or even groups acting in
concert can take over the sytem to their good above others. It further can
operate on certain principles that govern the manner which the sytem
interacts with individuals.
None of these can anarcho-anything touch upon. It assumes a priori that
all of these social mechanisms are pointless and serve no purpose. That
people will behave in a rational manner and that everyone is looking for
equitable and peaceful solutions to their problems.
> that it's a "nice" state --some states'll kill you *before* you break
> their laws). They do not protect people, they simply punish people they
> catch doing certain things.
So, nobody is saying there aren't governments that are worse than the US.
What's your point (or is it just hyperbole)?
> I agree, but I make no distinction between the government and the people
> running it.
Ah, that is a fatal mistake for any political system or one who studies them.
> The Constitution is a list of rules under which the
> government is supposed to operate, and if it is violated, the government
> no longer has any right to govern, and should by rights be shut down by
> the governed.
No, those who break the law should be punished. Don't confuse the issue by
saying simply because one man is bad and caused the system to fail that
either all men or bad (which applies to you) or all systems are broke (which
also includes yours).
A society is a group of people who act in concert under some sort of
mechanims, the result is a nation or government. Governments have no rights,
they're not people; another serious problem with your view. Governments have
duties, responsibilities, and obligations. It's a job.
> The central problem is that if the government was weak enough that it
> *could* be shut down immediately upon its first violation of its
> charter, it would be so weak that it could not offer a plausible
> guarantee of retribution for Constitutionally approved crimes.
You punish people not governments. You change the laws governments act under
when the laws are found to be bad. If the act is offensive enough you forbid
the government from even considering the issue (as in the 1st Amendment).
> Yup, but you cannot assume that the arbiters of the rules will always
> have respect for the rules.
It depends on how you write the rules and the sorts of systems you create
for review of such situations. Things like our Bill of Rights come to mind.
The actual number of issues that need to be addressed to resolve the
majority of our social ills are not that numerous. The problem is that the
reasonable and workable answer goes against some deeply felt belief or it
would cause a great uproar in the society.
This is one reason that I believe our current court system in respect to the
way lawyers and judges operate is broken within the context of the
Constitution in a variety of ways. Instead of judges asking "Does this law
fall within the boundary of the Constitution" they are setting boundaries
and creating law without legislation. Perhaps the SC needs to be passing
advisories regarding needed legislation to Congress.
> Rules have no power on their own --only
> that power given to them by people who agree with them. It is therefore
> foolish to concentrate power to enforce rules over other people --you
> cannot reasonably expect that the arbiters of said rules will not be
> corrupt.
So, who said anything about people not being corrupt? Well, except you
anarcho-whatever folks. Who keep trying to convince folks that crime and
such will magicly disapear in your system of government.
> This is the standard line handed to anyone who argues for the abolition
> of government. As such, it's pretty easy to tear apart. :)
>
> First: You tell me that without government, I'll end up watching my
No, what I'd say is that without taxes funding civil services you're going to
watch your house burn to the slab.
> "house burn to the slab." This implies that fire departments wouldn't
> exist if they were not subsidized by the state. This is incorrect.
> After all, the first fire departments in the world were not publicly
> operated.
Your right, they were a handfull of neighbors who happened to live near each
other. That isn't the question. The question is how do you plan on handling
the fire depts. duties in New York or Houston for example?
> In a free market, either the homeowner or the insurance
> companies will have an incentive to support fire departments. I'm
Really? How do you figure that? Why do you expect that considering the level
of abuse in the insurance industry and the competition that drives it that
it won't get transfered into support of the fire departments without some
sort of outside regulation? And remember, many people don't have insurance.
What happens when the ABC sponsored fire dept. gets to a non-insurance
house? Or one that's a XYZ house instead. How does the neighbor call the
right fire station when they notice the house burning? What happens when you
have somebody on a fixed or small income. Is your position that the paultry
sum they can raise will be taken seriously in regards compensating either
the insurance company or the fire dept.? What about the increase in
insurance premiums, what do you expect those to be compared to the current
tax rates?
> willing to pay the local fire department a fee to stand ready to come
> and put out fires for me.
You do it already, it's called taxes.
> Second: You tell me that without the state, I would have no help
> finding the perp who raped my daughter.
No, without taxes funding a civic police department with connections to
other police agencies around the country you're hope of finding the perp is
nil.
> This is also untrue. In the
> first place, many other people would probably be interested in helping
> me find the perp.
Yeah, reality certainly argues for civic participation and the willingness
of neighbors to come forward wit testimony.
Some because they're friends of me or my daughter,
> others because they want to catch the guy, lest he rape their
> daughters.
Oh, yeah. You and a couple of your beer buddies have like a real hope in
hell of matching the capabilities of a real police homicide or rape
investigation. Get fucking real. Let's not even get into a criminal who
happens to travel. Or how long they'll be able to help, how far do you and a
couple of weekend detectives (remember they have their own families and
bills that don't go away irrespective of what system we're using) think
it'll take; a couple of hundred years?
Geesh.
____________________________________________________________________
To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.
Confucius
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
