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

Albert P. Franco, II wrote:
> 
> I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and I am amazed by the level
> of utopist muck that is being spewed here by you.

I love you, too.

> Without some government the Bad Guys will be the only ones with anything.
> It is only with the threat of losing their power that leaders do good. If
> they had no power which could be lost or taken they will always do what's
> best for them in the short term, which is usually to shit on the peons.
> Dictators (like Pinochet and Gates) do their dirty deeds because they feel
> no need to placate the masses.

If they wield no real power, and proceed to do whatever is best for them
in the short term, they will be screwing themselves over in the long
term (or short term, if doing what they want results in someone shooting
them in self defense).

And precisely what dirty deeds has Mr. Gates ever done?  Excluding those
actions in which the judicious use of state regulation was involved.

> This anarcho-capitalist spew is so much crap that the bullshit indicators
> are blaring at top volume. If the people can't control a constitutional
> government, known for having peacefully free elections for over two hundred
> years, then how the hell do think you can convince somebody that the people
> are going to be able to control warlords and monopolies. It's called, "You
> don't like it? Bang, Bang, you're dead!"

Yah, and then somebody else points a gun at Mr. would-be warlord and
goes Bang, Bang, he's dead  (it's unsafe having warlords about --sorta
like scorpions).  That is, if Mr. would-be manages to shoot me without
being shot himself.

> Try to lift yourself out of the bullshit of your theory and give us at
> least one REAL example (current or historic) of a large scale, long lasting
> anarcho-capitalist society. Hippie communes are too small, and make sure
> it's capitalistic. If you can't think of one in the next year or so then
> come back and tell us.

It hasn't happened yet.  But then, neither had the USA, before 1776. 
The above is not a reasonable argument.

You can, of course, as me how it *could* happen.  And unfortunately,
you're partially correct, it couldn't happen under current conditions. 
The amount of personal firepower that is easily accessible by everyone
is not sufficient to back up the soverignity of each individual.  It's
all linked to whether weapons technology is such that individuals can
operate weapons which are just as effective as those wielded by highly
trained and specialized groups.  The pendulum of weapons tech. swings
back and forth over time.  During the American Revolution, the pendulum
was on the side of individuals, as can be shown by the fact that the
revolutionaries were carrying better weapons than those carried by
professional soldiers, and could use them to equal or larger effect.

Today, of course, the pendulum is on the other side.  Tanks, fighter
planes, aircraft carriers, etc are where it's at.  Read "Weapons Systems
and Political Stability" by Carroll Quigley, for an interesting analysis
on the subject.  

Of course, the pendulum keeps on swinging, and there are some
indications that it's moving back.  For example, anti-aircraft missiles
have gotten so small that they can be carried by one man.  In any modern
war, planes had better be damned careful of what they fly over, lest
they get a missile up their rears.

So, all we need right now is to produce either a convienient
impenetrable shield, or perhaps high-energy weapons.  When one man can
take out a tank with an inexpensive handweapon, we'll be all set. :)

Michael Hohensee

At 9:22 AM -0500 11/11/98, Albert P. Franco, II wrote:
>You obviously think that anything goes in business. Frankly Gates is a
>perfect example of why you anarcho-BS is doomed to failure. He will do
>anything (and has) he can to be the only player in every market he touches.

	And despite this, and his having large numbers of lawyers on his
side, and despite having large quantities of cash to persue advertising,

	LINUX IS KICKING HIS ASS IN THE SERVER MARKET, and poised to do the
same on the desktop.

	Linux had little corporate funding (some Government thru it's
subsidies of colleges and the internet), almost no advertising, and no, or
negative mindshare until recently.

>He has destroyed otherwise perfectly good businesses and products just to
>increase his profits. He has violated workers rights to increase his
>profit. In short he has demonstrated that if you let him murder wouldn't be
>to far a step to reach his goals.

	Ah, but if we let HIM, then we'd have that shot as well.

>He is the monster that proves that your ideas are actually very very old

	He is not a monster, he is just doing what many other businessmen
have done down thru the years.

>And so everybody's so busy shooting each other that nobody is investing,
>and I have to ask, "What happened to the capitalism part of
>anarcho-capitalism?"

	You assume that people will always be shooting. Most will figure
out that guns really aren't an economical solution to most problems.

	Remember the "Bad, Bad" wild west? Well, it seems that despite what
the movies tell you, you are more likely to get shot today in parts of
Chicago or LA than in most of the Old West. Why? Guns really don't pay as a
wealth _getter_, only as a wealth keeper.

>War is simply not good economics, and anarchy is war--constant, festering,
>sometimes small scale, sometimes large scale, but always war.

	By that comparison, so is life.
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com