[119060] in Cypherpunks
Re: concision (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Wed Oct 13 21:12:13 1999
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-Id: <199910140108.UAA26989@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 20:08:19 -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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:24:01 -0400
> From: "Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu@geocities.com>
> Subject: CDR: Re: concision (fwd)
> Freedom means both WHAT? Ever met an anarchist who claimed freedom means
> "freedom to kill anybody"? What statement is ambiguous? Ambiguous as in
> what?
Actualy, anarchy makes no sense at all, further it does not prevent
violence in any manner or form. People do not suddenly become paragons of
justice if one removes the constraint of society. If this were so we
wouldn't have society in the first place. It makes no difference whether we
accept the premise that society is either normalized coercion or intended to
protect one from coercion. In either case everyone would be a paragon and
there wouldn't be anyone participating in violence in the first place. So,
this leaves us with one logical conclusion, and backed up by observatio in
the real world, some people just don't play by the rules irrespective of
what those rules might be. Their bitch is that they are rules, that is
anarchy. The other aspect to anarchism is they say it provides superior
freedom of choice yet they expect everyone to behave in a particular way.
Clearly contradictory since some people don't want to play by the rules
(anarchist being one such group), contrary to what anarchist propose.
Anarchism will work provided everyone has the same base values and
expectations and goals. Again, contrary to anarchist claims which purport
to support multiplicity in all of these.
We are talking of inalienable rights here, not those granted by the state.
This means that you can't have a right to 'freedom from aggression' and
still have a right to self-defence. Simply initiating violence doesn't
remove ones rights, they are inalienable after all and by definition can't
be removed. Your assailant has the same identical rights as you do. If we
accept your premise that 'freedom from aggression' is inalienable it removes
the concept of self-defence. This is obviously a contradictory situation so
our intitial assumption about either 'inalienable rights' or ' freedom from
aggression' must be at fault. Further, with your definition there is no
justification for pre-emptive use of force at all, ever. Clearly something
contrary to any definition of self-defence. If we accept that there are no
inalienable rights then we are left with who has the bigger stick, which
anarchist say isn't relevant in anarchy. If we accept inalienable rights;
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then we are forced to ignore
claims such as 'freedom from aggression' (your rights don't justify
defining anothers rights which is what this concept does) and use 'right to
self-defence'. You have a right to self-defence, you have no right to
believe (or tell them) others can't or won't assault you.
> 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.
police/military/ and legislation is all a government is; and yes a
government is a state because you can't have a government without people.
Bottem line, if a group of people get together and agree to some set of
rules, whatever those rules might be, they are a government, country, or state.
By drawing a distinction between the three your argument is specious.
> If you think that can be done without coercion, we're clearly not on the
> same planet.
Who is coercing you to stay in the US or whatever country you are in? Once
you agree to participate as a citizen (either permanently or as a legal
alien) it is not unreasonable to expect punishment if you break the rules.
If you're an illegal alien then you're a priori breaking their rules and
should expect punishment. The distinction is whether you have a say in the
rules making or not. If not then coercion is inherent in everything, if not
then each case must be taken on a case by case basis unless you vote is
coerced (e.g. USSR). Assuming you can leave your country, is there anyone
telling you how to vote? Is there anyone telling you that you can't run for
office?
Most people who claim coercion are really individuals who are unhappy they
agreed to live in a society and didn't fully understand what they were
getting into, and as a consequence want out of the deal with no consequences
and whine when the other parties in that deal say 'No, it'll cost you'.
____________________________________________________________________
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 --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
