[119050] in Cypherpunks
Re: concision (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marcel Popescu)
Wed Oct 13 16:55:05 1999
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:24:01 -0400
Message-Id: <010e01bf15c0$3dda8b20$0200a8c0@marcu>
From: "Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu@geocities.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cypherpunks@openpgp.net>
Reply-To: "Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu@geocities.com>
X-Loop: openpgp.net
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.
Freedom means both WHAT? Ever met an anarchist who claimed freedom means
"freedom to kill anybody"? What statement is ambiguous? Ambiguous as in
what?
> > > 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.
"So" is used for implications. My statement CONTRADICTS your statement, so
"so" is weird. Persons who believe in ANY kind of state are statists. What
does "at odds with itself" mean (in this case at least)?
> > > 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.
I fail to see any demonstration.
> Also your specious distinction between 'state' and 'nation' is faulty.
Why?
> Further, a group which decides that they will decide their societal rules
> themselves without recourse to others is in fact a state.
A group doesn't decide anything, fallacy of reification. If some people
decide that they won't kill each other, it doesn't transform them into 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.
Qualify for WHAT?
> There is *no* requirement that individuals be considered property
> under the definition of socialism, only that individuals can't *own*
> property.
I have no problem with individuals being considered property, it has nothing
to do with either socialism or statism. In a libertarian society, criminals
can become the property of the victim - at least partially.
> > 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.
One of us doesn't understand English. I am willing to accept it's me. Where
the hell have I said anything about a government "governed" and "by one"?
> 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.
A minarchist by definition is a statist who only wants the state in three
fields: police, military, and legislation. Your definition describes a
minimal government.
> 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.
If you think that can be done without coercion, we're clearly not on the
same planet.
> 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.
Only if you claim that states (governments) can own anything. Socialism.
> > 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.
ROTFL... fallacy of ad hominem. Do you know anything about logic?
Mark
