From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:03:46 GMT
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI

Sorry about the null post, I naively assumed the editor/newsreader symbiont
had the policy of posting the buffer that happens to be in your face.
Sure it happens to the best of 'em.

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct3004501@caisr1.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>
>Okay, here are ten real questions for left-anarchists...
>

>From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
>Okay, here are ten real questions for left-anarchists...
>

You pose questions I've been struggling with for a long time...
Disclaimer...the (capital L) Libertarians never claimed that utopia is an
option....  This utopian (well, idealist) doesn't claim to have all the
answers.

But here's what I got so far...

>1) Without property rights, what happens when two people want to use
>the same item at the same time, and neither is willing to back down?
>

This is called "deadly embrace".  Unfortunately, all the methods I know
of for dealing with it involve a supervisory System, e.g. Peterson's
algorithm.  Needless to say, I see the problem to be not the lack of
established ownership, but the unwillingness of either/both parties to
"back down".  I don't have a solution I consider adequate.  For a method
that MIGHT work in a FEW such cases, see I Kings 3:16-28.

>2) If they get into a fight, are the allowed to proceed, or will other
>people forcibly break it up?
>

If the assumption of 1), that neither is willing to back down (that both
are "ascendant" personalities) is safe, why not just let 'em fight to the
death?  In other cases always side with whichever combatant you consider
to be the "underdog".

>3) Can you use force to prevent others from entering your home, or can
>anyone off the street decide they want to live with you?
>

If we can't mature to the point where we can live with each other, then
anarchy will never happen.  If anarchy does happen, "home" will simply
be a safe place to sleep, not a territory to be defended.

>4) If nobody owns anything, is anyone allowed to destroy anything?  Is
>nobody allowed to destroy anything?
>

Destruction of life will be punishable by sentence to Hell.
Destruction of property will be impossible.

>
>5) What happens when nobody wants to do the unpleasant or boring jobs
>-- from working on an assembly line to shuffling papers in an office?
>

I'm willing to do any job that doesn't violate my conscience or involve
selling stuff.

Re assembly lines:
1. Most of them produce shit nobody needs anyway like, say, electric
   pencil sharpeners.
2. People who aren't held to the treadmill/rat-race by the threat of poverty
   won't offer political resistance to automating menial shitwork.

Re office paperwork:

The only reason it exists is because all business transactions are based on
the assumption that the other party is screwing you over.  Look at the
language of any piece of pushed paper... invoice, bill of lading, packing
list, bank cheque
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
No short changing, CYA, embezzlement, hierarchy etc. = no paperwork


>6) When someone uses violence, is there organized retribution, and if
>so, of what kind?
>

Exclusion from the community.  I can't think of a less draconian way.
I with I could.

>7) If someone is accused of using violence and denies it, is there an
>organized way of investigating and weighing the evidence?
>

Same old fashioned common law.  Burden of proof on the accuser.
But the accuser isn't the state, of course.

>8) Are people allowed to own weapons?  Any weapons?  If not, how do
>you enforce the ban?
>

No restriction on ownership of weapons.  No tolerance of use of same.
See #6.

>9) How do you handle vendettas between groups that hate each other
>(enemies, rival families, rival gangs, ethnic groups, etc.)?
>

I believe the cause of almost all of these is competition over economic
opportunities.

>10) If a group decides to establish control over property using
>weapons and force, do you attempt to stop them, and if so, how?
>

How else could anyone establish (control over) property?
I don't know how to stop it.  I wish I did.

>_______________________________________________________________________________
>
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>

These were a lot tougher than the ones from the wobbly.
Keep 'em coming.


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy