From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:01:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the (fwd)
Message-ID: <199811131436.IAA32048@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



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 --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------