From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawrence Mass.
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:10:37 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: cdt@sw.stratus.com's message of 23 Dec 92 21:09:23 GMT

In article <1haki3INNf6p@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:


   In article <105573@bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

   It appalls me that you can say in one breath:

   > Still, being more Anarchist/Libertarian minded, goverment controls 
   > of any kind are diststaful to me.

   ...and then in the next breath:

   > Consider what the Police in Lawrence Mass are doing now:
   > In a for 4 block area known for drug dealing and prostitution
   > they have "sealed off" the area. Residents are given "passes".
   > There are checkpoints where the police will ask to your
   > license and registartion, they give you a card explaining why
   > you were stopped and they record your licence plate number.

   > It seems to be working. Streets where children dared not play
   > or old people dare not venture are now safe.

   If you don't think that creating a four-block police state is not 
   "government controls," just what the hell do you think it is?

   Go back and reconcile your actual philosophy with your apparently
   hastily-chosen self-label.

I contend Sir that I have indeed reconsiled my philosophy 
and haste was not at all a factor. If you really wish to know 
what I am talking about read on. If not hit "j" now, but 
if you do so , do not claim to know what I am about or 
interpret my ideas for me! I can articulate my opinions for myself. 
I challenge all my pundits to read on:

The majority of you attack my beliefs as Facsist or as inconsistant,
or incompatioable. There are many scholars of alternative Libertarian
theory, Robert Nozick, for one that advocate, a Minarchist competeing
Protective agencies. The citizen can choose to join whichever one he
wishes. Other scholars like Ayn Rand claim that these will just end
up at war with each other.

"Disagreements about what is to be enforced, agrue the unreluctant
 archist, provide yet another reason(in addition to lack of factual
 knowledge) for the apparatus of the state; as also does the need
 for sometimes changing the content of what is to be enforced. People
 who prefer peace to the enforcement of their view of right will
 unite together in one state. But of course, if people genuinely
 do hold this preference, their protective agancies will not 
 do battle either."

 R. Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia. 1974 Basic Books pgs 141, 142.

 If you do erect a wall and control the flow of nonmembers in and out,
 and these nonmembers agree to follow the minmal requirements while
 inside(and become subject to punishements, for infractions) I don't
 see a problem either. If two or more such defacto states are near
 each other I see free trade as another reason they will not war.

 As for freedom inside the wall; If there is a true minimalist
 state, I see the rotation of all official positions, including
 executive officer as a fair and equitable. Everybody gets a
 shot, in turn and the actions of such officials is very restricted
 and the balance tilted towards the free citizen.
 (for an example of a this setup see Walden II, by B.F. Skinner).

 The question of social engineering is this: It is not WHO will
 be in control(programming minds for you sardonic types) but
 what is the motivation of said controllers. We heard about
 "Family Values" so much recently, it caused me to wonder
 what the heck these were. It seems to me, rather than teach
 someone's notion of "values" is it not better to teach
 people how to reason for themselves? Can we not teach reasoning
 and the use of logic? Can we not create a better citizen by
 doing so? If you think the public education system in it's
 current form is an effective agency in departing the ability to
 reason, stop reading here, for we shall never share a common
 ground. If on the other hand you think that a public education
 could give individuals the potential to act rationaly through
 the faculty of reason; Is there not hope of fundementaly
 changing society?

 Capiatlism for all it's ills works. Capitalism requires freedom
 of the individual. Anarchism strives to make the individual more
 free. How can they be incompatable? 

 "Greed is good greed works."

 Gordon Gecco form the Movie "Wall Street" 
 
 Self interest is not a bad thing. Like any good thing though too
 much of can be bad. 

 "Now let us see how this principle is manifested in literature,
  in th this literature created by the Victor Hugos, the Dumas,
  the Jules Janins and other authors of books and articles
  in the bourgeois newspapers which have inudated Europe
  since 1830, instilling depravity and evoking egoism in the
  hearts of young people of both sexes. Take whichever novel
  you like: aside from false, lofty sentiments and fine sentences,
  what do you find there? Always the same thing: a young man is 
  poor, humble, and unrecognized; he is consumed by all kinds
  of ambitions and desires; he would like to live in a palace,
  eat truffles, drink champagne, live in a grand style, and
  sleep with some pretty marquise. While others fail, he succeeds
  through heroic efforts and extrodinary adventures. That is the
  hero: that is pure individualism."
  ...

 "Everyone has the right to attain the highest social positions and
  offices. But to get there one must be intelligent and clever; one
  must be strong and wealthy; one must know how to surpass all
  rivals and be able to do so. It is again a race from point to point:
  it is the clever in the strong individuals who will govern and
  fleece the masses."

  Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin from "Three Lectures to the Swiss
  Members of the International May 1871.

  Couldn't the first passage as easily describe a great number of
  movies made in Hollywood? And does not the second succintly
  capture the essence of American politics today? Capitalism
  tempured by rational Anarchist sentiments is a hy-brid that
  could fundementaly change society and make a better life
  for all citizens. I would not compel anyone to join an
  A-C enclave and I would further stipulate that there is
  still plenty of real estate that is not developed in the US
  where these communities could be erected without encroaching
  on existing communities.

  I'm must apologize for departing from the topic of this newsgroup
  but the multiplicity and voraciuosness of the attacks on what
  I was trying to convey in the concept of Anarcho-Capitalist
  Enclaves demanded that I elaborate.

 -sjm



--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel