[118933] in Cypherpunks
Re: concision (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sun Oct 10 18:39:27 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910102231.RAA15323@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:31:34 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:54:12 -0400
> From: "Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu@geocities.com>
> Subject: CDR: Re: concision (fwd)
> From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
> > Firstly, your statement is ambigous. Statist believe in the freedom of the
> > state to do as it sees fit.
> That's not how anarchists / libertarians use the word. When we say freedom,
> we mean "freedom from aggression", not "freedom to kill anybody".
> Equivocation.
Actualy freedom means both, consider self-defence. Your statement is still
ambigous.
> > This may or may not be in opposition to personal
> > freedom. Depends on the particular form of nationalism that is being sold.
> All statism is by definition opposed to personal freedom, if only in a tiny
> degree. A voluntary state is no longer a state, but a private organization.
So persons who believe in a democratic state based on fundamentaly
inalienable rights aren't statist. Your definition is at odds with itself.
Again, ambigous.
> > Simply believing in nations doesn't imply any reference to freedom. If
> > anything it recognizes that people bonded together are more powerful and
> > better able to defend themselves than when alone.
> Non-sequitur. A group is not a nation - the concept of nation implies a
> state [which, as stated above, can only be compulsory], or otherwise we're
> just calling it anarchy. I know of no anarchist who uses the term "anarchist
> nations".
As demonstrated above, your thesis that states imply coersion is faulty.
Also your specious distinction between 'state' and 'nation' is faulty.
Further, a group which decides that they will decide their societal rules
themselves without recourse to others is in fact a state.
> > If the particular statist
> > believes that management of resources is best accomplished by centralized
> > control then one can argue, with proviso, that they are oppossed to
> > individual freedom.
> This is socialism.
Yeah, which may or may not recognize individual freedom and rights. If the
state does not hold that the individual is property then this would clearly
qualify. There is *no* requirement that individuals be considered property
under the definition of socialism, only that individuals can't *own*
property.
> A statist can be a minarchist - see Ayn Rand - claiming
> that law and defense are to be administered by a monopoly. It still implies
> coercion, it still implies lack of one's freedom to refuse the state's
> monopoly.
A government governed by a 'one' is a monarchy, a single head. It could
be an individual (historical examples) or a group (usualy we use the
relations between members to refine it further - e.g. oligarchy). A
'minarchist' by definition is a government based upon the thesis of minimal
control of the citizens. Not the same thing at all. And no, simply having a
monopoly in charge does not in and of itself require coercion, they could
simply throw you out of the country. Clearly there would be no use of force to
make you comply with their wishes. You would be free to go anywhere you wanted
except into *their* country to practice your beliefs. If you were to go back
then it would in fact be *you* that was practicing coersion.
> Statism may in fact be more liberating, consider the recent discussion
> about the seperatist movement in Canada. Clearly the French speaking peoples
> want their own seperate state. This is without a doubt in their best interest
> if we are talking about their expressing their desired life style in contrast
> to that being imposed by the English constituent.
> "Their"? Who is "they"?
I'm stopping here, you're clearly either not paying any attention or you're
smoking crack.
The FRENCH CANADIANS.
____________________________________________________________________
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full
of passionate intensity.
W.B. Yeats
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
