Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 12:02:52 +0000
> From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod@brd.ie>
> Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)

> Under an "anarcho-whatever" people are left to their own devices.

And *that* is the primary failure of the entire theory. It's strongest point
is sufficient to kill it. No, actualy, it's strongest point demands that it
be killed. Very weak argument epistomologicaly, with little more to offer
than didactic charms.

The implication is that individuals are making societal policies with no
checks and balances (failure 1). In effect, the only way an individual will be
restrained is by some sort of natural community action (never mind that
people don't voluntarily act that way, failure 2). There is no clear
mechanism to arbitrate disagreements other than the above mechanism pretty
much eschewing any sort of standard of behaviour which further fosters
non-compliant behaviour (failure 3). There is no clear mechanism that
protects property or civil rights since the very arbitration mechanism
changes (and by implication the standards of ethics/morality it's held to)
on a case by case basis mediated by the whim of chance on the compatibility
of any two individuals personal views (failure 4). The arbitrary use of
violence is at no point addressed (failure 5). One of the primary arguments
for anarcho- based systems is to address corruption and unfair competition.
Yet at no point does it sufficiently address the guidelines as to what those
are let alone limits on their solutions (failure 6).

So what we are left with is a system whereby people mediate their actions
based on the compatibility of their personal philosophies. As I've said
before, anarcho- based systems make the same phsychological mistake that
every system other than a democracy makes; if it works for one person the
answer should be acceptable to another. The very fact that the contrary to
this is one of the reasons behind anarcho- support doesn't seem to impinge
upon the concioussness. Anarchy is contradictory at the axiomatic level.

Another way to see it is: Let people do what they want and they'll naturaly
                          conform to what I want.

There is this same axiomatic problem with Hayek's economics and social
theories.


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:
> > From: "Frank O'Dwyer" <fod@brd.ie>
> > Under an "anarcho-whatever" people are left to their own devices.

[...]
> The implication is that individuals are making societal policies with no
> checks and balances (failure 1). 

You are missing the point completely -- there is no reason to suppose
that people, left to their own devices, would do anything other than
what people left to their own devices have already done, which is to put
in place all the present systems of law and government. The problem for
both your point of view and that of the "anarcho-whatevers" is that
there is no need to speculate about what an anarchy would look like, we
already have one. It's just that it doesn't resemble what either of you
thinks an anarchy should be. 

[...]

Cheers,
Frank O'Dwyer.

At 08:36 AM 11/13/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:

>So what we are left with is a system whereby people mediate their actions
>based on the compatibility of their personal philosophies. 

Standard interoperation of different protocols.  We do it all the time.

>As I've said
>before, anarcho- based systems make the same phsychological mistake that
>every system other than a democracy makes; if it works for one person the
>answer should be acceptable to another. The very fact that the contrary to
>this is one of the reasons behind anarcho- support doesn't seem to impinge
>upon the concioussness. Anarchy is contradictory at the axiomatic level.
>
>Another way to see it is: Let people do what they want and they'll naturaly
>                          conform to what I want.

Who cares what they do as long as they leave me alone.

>There is this same axiomatic problem with Hayek's economics and social
>theories.

He was not an anarchist.

If voluntary interaction doesn't work as a social system then we're all in
big trouble because persons (you?) who love to command others will have a
hard time doing so as everyone becomes rich, mobile, and technologically
powerful.  If you have figured out a way to push around rich, mobile, and
technologically powerful people you're a smarter man than I am.  I'm sure
the Feds could use your unique insights.

BTW we live in a representative republic not a democracy and the theory was
that it was to be a representative republic of strictly limited powers.
Our representatives have forgotten.  Technology and market institutions are
teaching them different.

DCF