RE: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)

From:	Declan McCullagh

	The short answer, perhaps, is that government should as a
general rule
	adopt those policies that allow the greatest freedom over the
long term.
	Private social pressure from families and communities may then
develop
into a more powerful force.
.....................................................


There are limits to what can be accomplished through government.
'Government' is a coercive medium for effecting results; if everything
could be accomplished by coercion, then it would rightly be expected
that everything (everyone) should be always to be subject to coercion in
order to have a smoothly running social machine.

But if everything (all the benefits that people expect from social
arrangements) could be accomplished by coercion, we wouldn't be the kind
of life forms that we are.   We would be the equivalent of "technology",
subject to someone (else's) latest algorithmic program.

Certainly under such an arrangement there would be no need for privacy.

   ..
Blanc

Blanc Weber wrote:

> From:   Declan McCullagh
> The short answer, perhaps, is that government should as a
> general rule adopt those policies that allow the greatest 
> freedom over the long term.
> .....................................................
 
> 'Government' is a coercive medium for effecting results; if everything
> could be accomplished by coercion, then it would rightly be expected
> that everything (everyone) should be always to be subject to coercion in
> order to have a smoothly running social machine.

  "When Hitler was Fuhrer, the trains ran on time."
  The government's efforts at coercion are often justified by raising
the dark spectre of the chaos/anarchy that will result from all of the
cogs not being in perfect alignment.
  Naturally, in this scenario, all cogs which are out of alignment are
defective, and therefore subject to 'adjustment' by various forms of
heat and hammering.

> But if everything (all the benefits that people expect from social
> arrangements) could be accomplished by coercion, we wouldn't be the kind
> of life forms that we are.   We would be the equivalent of "technology",
> subject to someone (else's) latest algorithmic program.

  I wouldn't be so certain that we aren't, if I were you.
  There are philosophies and spiritualities which proffer the view of
"man as a machine," in which our actions can be seen as much more
"mechanical" than most of us would care to admit.
  Of course, the obvious fallacy of this view is shown by the fact
that, were it true, our attitudes and actions would be controlled
by advertising and ten-second sound-bytes yanking at our emotions, 
rather than by the reason and logic that so clearly dominates our
society, as can be demonstrated with one's index finger and a
TV remote-control unit.

<flushing sound> ["Toto has left the building."]
-- 
Toto
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html