From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 09:27:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw (fwd) [correction]
Message-ID: <199711020123.TAA02381@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
> Subject: Free Market Anarchy (Beck's Folly) - Fundamental flaw
> Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 19:20:20 -0600 (CST)

> The fundamental flaw with the justification of a Free Market Anarchy and
> also the fundamental condemnation of Democracy is that of taxation.
> 
> However, the theory of democracy does not in any way address the issues of
> taxation, only how laws are made and what the boundaries on those laws are.
> In fact, until about the first third of this century there was NO personal
> taxation in this country at the federal level. Clear prima facia , and to use
> Beck's verbage 'real', evidence that the assertion that personal taxation and
> democracy are irrevocably wedded.
                                  ^
                                  is false.


> Ask yourself, why is it that no free
> market anarchist *ever* mentions commenality in humanity? Why do their have
> inherent and implicit in their systems a class structure? They would have
> you believe this is natural, it is not. Class structures are reflections of
> the beliefs of the people, not some fundamental law of nature.
> 
> Furhermore, Free Market Anarchy does not address the issues of protection
> from abuse. It does not recognize in any manner any mechanism for redress of
> grievances unless you happen to be one of the few who controls the wealth.
> It further assumes that those who don't have wealth will willingly take this
> station in life as a given and simply work for those who do have wealth and
> accept without resentment that they will forever be denied any sort of
> opportunity to change their station in life except at the whim of the power
> brokers. It further does not in any way address issues of life, liberty, or
> pursuits of happines - only monetary wealth. It is clear that having wealth
> does not in any manner guarantee any sort of empathy for others in the holder.
> If anthing, history demonstrates that such 'lords of wealth' are pragmatic
> about collecting wealth to the point of predation.
> 
> This argument from the specific to the general is fundamentaly flawed and
> the conclusion suffers because of it.
> 
> Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. How that power is
> obtained, by vote or specie, is irrelevant as clearly shown by history.
> 
> Some hold that the majority of the populace suffer taxation at the point of
> a gun. This assertion is also false. There have historicaly been several
> political parties which have promised to eliminate personal taxation. In
> every case those parties could not control more than a truly minimal
> percentage of the vote. Yes, people say taxation is too high, they do not
> hold the assertion that taxes should be completely eliminated.
> 
> Free Market Anarchies are doomed to the same sort of death, and if ever
> implimented the same sorts of abuse, as all other non-democratic systems.
> 
> Also, recognize that those who support such systems have a set of commen
> character flaws. First, they can't differentiate the implimentation from the
> theory of political systems. They would have you believe that if a given
> implimentation of a system is flawed or broken than all systems of that ilk
> are then broken or flawed. Clearly history does not support such assertions.
> In short, they would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Secondly, these
> in general are the sorts of people who find glee when they see a polic
> officer run over in the street. Do you seriously believe that anyone this
> cold and uncarring would not hesitate for an instant in putting pepper spray
> in your eyes? Thirdly, they express a view which I call Theory X equality.
> In short, as long as they are the ones making the profit, the fact that you
> suffer for it, justly or not, is irrelevant and justified. In more prosaic
> words, the ends *always* justifies the means. An assertion that history also
> does not support.
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________________
>    |                                                                    |
>    |    The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there   |
>    |    be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.       |
>    |                                                                    |
>    |                                       -Alan Greenspan-             |
>    |                                                                    | 
>    |            _____                             The Armadillo Group   |
>    |         ,::////;::-.                           Austin, Tx. USA     |
>    |        /:'///// ``::>/|/                     http://www.ssz.com/   |
>    |      .',  ||||    `/( e\                                           |
>    |  -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-                         Jim Choate       |
>    |                                                 ravage@ssz.com     |
>    |                                                  512-451-7087      |
>    |____________________________________________________________________|
>