HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phredd@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Phredd Groves)
Subject: Re: Deep South Anti-Columbus Anarchist Gathering
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Klordny
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:36:22 GMT


> Colunbus is also credited with discrediting the "Flat Earth" hypothesis.
> Everyone has some kind of redeeming value.
> 
> 
> Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us
> 
> Keep the Aspidistra Flying!


The "Flat Earth" hypothesis was not credited by anyone literate during the
late 15th C. before Columbus left.  His discovery of a huge unknown
landmass that was continous from  nearly one pole to the other caused a
stir in Western Europe though.  Of course, it took a while to find out it
was THAT big.

phredd@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.141025.16821@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Sep30.010355.14714@vela.acs.oakland.edu>,<1992Sep30.063238.5721@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<1992Oct1.203920.1571@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:04:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.203920.1571@vela.acs.oakland.edu> wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:
   What Orwell says so much more eloquently than I can is how
   effectively the System closes alternatives to itself.

On the other hand, if there *were* an alternative, as soon as some
people exercised it, it would become part of the System, by
definition.

Dale
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:46:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.050526.12452@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep24.200356.10155@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> >drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
|> >>The problem with private security companies as a general
|> >>law-enforcement tool is that the people who would hire them and the
|> >>people upon which they would be enforcing the law are likely to be
|> >>decidedly different.
|> >
|> >You forget that the people "upon whom they would be enforcing the law"
|> >would also have security companies working for them, which would get
|> >very very angry about having their clients killed. Checks and
|> >balances.
|> 
|> It still sounds like a bunch of pigs hired by rich people to bash the
|> heads of poor people.  The only difference between private security
|> companies and governments is that with democratic governments poor   
|> people can vote the fascists out of power.  Poor people will not be
|> able to pay for security companies; they will be forced to try to defend
|> themselves against an army of thugs that doesn't even pretend to have
|> a Bill of Rights.
|> 

	Poor people have money, too.  They just have less.  There is no reason to
think that most people would not be able to afford protection services since most
of government taxation falls on the middle class today.  Anyway, since private
security forces would not be overpaid, unionized, bureaucratic municipal police,
there may be substantial savings over state controlled police.  And people will
have extra money to spend since they are not paying taxes.

	There also may be volunteer patrol groups for poorer people.  In many
cities Black Muslims have organized volunteer groups and in Brooklyn, Hasidic Jews
have done similar things.  These voluntary private groups help to make safer
neighborhoods for community residents and are provided by and for people with
little money.

	For the poorest people, private charities would probably spring up to pay
for those people who could not afford any protection.  Very few people would fit
into this category.

	Finally, you seem to have this attitude that rich people will just want
to abuse poor people.  I see no evidence of this from people I know.  Rich people
want the same things the poor want.  Except they have more money.
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:49:09 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

I inserted foot in mouth:
|> I don't plan on doing anything big to change the world either.
|> Rather than give all my possessions away to whoever asks for
|> them, I give to those who I think appreciate it most, and do
|> not expect it out of me, [...]
 
thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>What gives you the right to decide who gets *your* posessions?
>Remember: property is theft.
 
OUCH!  [Insert every freaking swearword I know] Thant!
That's the last thing I expected... someone to prick my
conscience....   I'm kind of dazed...
 
Alright... I'm a freaking coward myself... a wimp...  probably
why I get so nasty with the others on here....  I wouldn't
be so harsh on them if I didn't know how they felt...
 
I suffer from the same freaking disease that all the rest of
these bastards do...   To call it by it's sweet name self
preservation....  To call it by its real name... the source
of all death and hatred in this world...  The nature of the
beast...
 
Damn you Thant... why did you have to call me on this!
Couldn't you just let me glide through life not aware of
this inner hypocrisy?
 
I don't know if I can make it Thant...   I don't know
if can be that strong...  I don't know that I have that
much faith....
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:08:10 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

Walter,
 
Just lettin' ya know that I share your sentiments almost
entirely...   Just a couple little points I'd like to bring
up.  I'm not a leftist or a rightist.  I shoot somewhere
through the center.   I think we ought to get rid of
private property altogether, but I am not going to force any
of the Capitalistocracy into giving up any of their
"property".  If they wanna be fools, let em...
 
I don't plan on doing anything big to change the world either.
Rather than give all my possessions away to whoever asks for
them, I give to those who I think appreciate it most, and do
not expect it out of me,  I treat homeless people with just as
much respect as suits.  (alright, maybe the homeless deserve
more respect than the suits, but I'm not gonna judge anyone
by the clothes they wear.)
 
Hmmm....  economic necessity is God's way of punishing us
for Original Sin....  I tend to have some real non-mainstream
views of God.  For example... I don't think God punishes any
of us... Not even the anarchocapitalists...  God is an anarchist.
He minds his own business.   I mean he REALLY minds his own
business...  some people think this low profile means that
God doesn't exist.  They think that if an all-powerful God existed
he would just have to interfere to stop all the nasty things
we do to each other.   For me, the fact that God doesn't mess
with us, just shows me how great (s)he is.  God didn't give
us a free will for nuthin' ya know...
 
And don't take this Original Sin stuff too seriously...  I like
to think we are Originally Blessed, and that things are only
gonna get better.   Are we gonna do it on our own?  I don't think
so... I think this is where we need God....  A low profile,
anarchisto-pacifisto God....  who occasionally gives us suggestions
on what will really make us happy....
 
Glenn   (the heretic  (I know))          glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:12:10 GMT

In article <1a7pefINNs0s@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
|> danny@athena.mit.edu  (Daniel A. LaGattuta) writes:
|>  
|> >Money can only buy what people are willing to sell.  Governments will
|> >take anything they want.  This is an important distinction.
|>  
|> Suppose you have a sculpure that I want.  You will not sell said
|> sculpure to me.   I pay a thief to steal your sculpture.  Money might
|> be only able to buy what people are willing to sell, but it can
|> get even those things that people are not willing to sell.  Surely
|> you can't be so niave as to disagree with this.
|
	Yes, but it is easier to defend oneself against an individual or a
company than an army.
>  
|> |> What we need is not to revert back to being slaves of the rich,
|> |> but instead overcome the human disease property altogether.
|>  
|> >No government does not mean slavery to the rich.  
|>  
|> No, first of all, I did not say that no government means slavery to
|> the rich.  If you would have included what came before that quote:
|>  
|> Separation of church and state (Violence and Coercion) is good.
|> When this isn't the case, you have the inquisition.
|>  
|> Separation of money and state (V&C) is better.
|> Without this separation you have slavery.
|>  
|> Separation of state from state (V&C) is best.
|> Without this separation, you have government.
|>  
|> You would have seen that I didn't say that lack of government
|> would cause slavery, I said that a government based on money,
|> Capitalistocracy (which is what anarchocapitalism really is)
|> is what leads to slavery.

	Power in a free market is decentralized.  There will be no capitalist
conspiracy that will run everything.  There will be many people minding their
own business trying to get rich.  And only by producing valuable goods and
services, and not by buying favors from politicians.  There will be no
government so no one could control it.  Perhaps you should define government.|>  
|
> >First of all, there is no such thing as THE RICH.  There are only
|> >individuals who happen to have more assets than average.
|>  
|> There are sheep and wolves... which one are you?
|> There are those who give more and those who take more...
|> which one are you?
|
	I am neither.  I am an individual.>  

|> >For you, but not for me.  If in an anarchy, we have a society of
|> >individuals like you, then you will get your way.  If not, something else
|> >will happen.  But whatever happens, people should be free to make choices.
|> >No society should be designed by any single human being.
|>  
|> Agreed...   but are you trying to say that I'm not supposed to try to
|> contribute any ideas?
|>  
	Ideas are fine.  I just don't think that they should be imposed on anyone.
|>  
|> P.S.  Money can't buy you love.
	
	But it can buy a new stereo.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:14:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.085933.6133@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.181321.1831@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>insist, take mine!". The idea that people should give away their goods
>>seems based on the false premise that the world has a fixed amount of
>>wealth and that the only way to make the poor better off is to
>>redistribute this wealth. This is not true. Every time someone builds
>>something, produces something, fixes something, or otherwise works,
>>the world becomes a richer place. The pool of things that we possess
>>increases. Wealth is not fixed. The economy is not a zero sum game.
>
>But who builds, fixes, and produces things?  I don't think Donald
>Trump has actually ever built, fixed, or produced anything in his life.
>The people that do this are not the people that get rich.  And if 
>someone gets to possess lots of things without creating things, they
>are a parasite.  If Donald Trump was removed from the earth, there 
>would be the same amount of goods and wealth being produced, but all
>of his possessions would be distributed among the rest of the people,
>making everyone more wealthy.

Yeah, labor creates all social wealth, like the buildings which Trump
owns.  The state recognizes that Trump owns the buildings and other
things which he has hired workers to produce.  The state enforces that
ownership with the threat of violence or loss of freedom, if you try
to take it from him.  What workers, who create all social wealth, get
for their efforts are wages.  Wages are the price of their skills on
the labor market.  The price of their skills will always be less than
the total value they produce, if the employer is going to make a profit.
That's capitalism.  The way it has evolved in the United States of 
America now, we have a situation where 1% of the population have
more wealth than 90% of the population.




-- 
Mike Ballard 
Time is money. Steal some today!
Don't just complain, organize! e-mail iww@igc.org  Ph: (415)863-WOBS.

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.141025.16821@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:56:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.141025.16821@genie.slhs.udel.edu> nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
   (I've heard the idea that people in hunter/gatherer societies only
   needed to work 4 hours a day, but (a) we can't get there from
   here--even if enough people died off, someone would remember how to
   reinvent agriculture, (b) I always wonder if that four hours
   includes child care, and (c) I understand that they had a 50%
   infant mortality rate.

More was the fact that it counted the time needed to gather the
mongongo nuts, but not the time to prepare them for eating, which took
quite a long time.  Also, people lost a lot of weight during the dry
season; there were times when people didn't need *any* time to get
food, because there wasn't any.

   I'm not enthusiastic about utopias which
   only work if you don't consider babies to be of much value.
   Besides, I _like_ heating, air-conditioning, books, medium tech
   music, science fiction conventions, etc., etc.)

Supposedly, we could (each) live at a 1940s level of material culture
working 1/2 time.  But how many of us choose to?  "Necessity" is a
flexible category.  Even lethal threats can be circumvented by
sufficiently quick breeding.  (Weird factoid:  The slave (black)
population of the ante-bellum US South had one of the fastest rates of
natural increase ever recorded before the era of modern medicine.)

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:26:16 MDT
Reply-To: galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City

In article <1992Sep29.212624.3679@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>>It may be decentralized, but at least in a democracy I have some control
>>over George Bush's power.  In a pure free market, the poor have no control
>>at all. 
>
>On the contrary.
>
>I, for one, didn't vote for George Bush. I have no control over the
>man whatsoever. I can go up to him, tell him off, and he'll just
>laugh. On the other hand, a poor person in a propertarian anarchist
>system can hire a different police company to protect them if they
>don't like the security services their current company provides, or
>they can join a local security cooperative -- in either case, they are
>able, directly, to fire the police themselves and choose new security
>arrangements.

You keep talking about poor people hiring security companies.  Are you
forgetting that "poor" means "not having very much money"?  What about
homeless beggars?  They have no money at all.  

>Imagine if everyone got together and decided every year which car
>company everyone would be forced to buy from. We'd sit down and vote
>on who would make the cars this year. Silly, eh? Thats what we do,

Good example...  So, Donald Trump gets the Rolls Royce of security
companies, and poor people get the beat-up used Gremlin of security
companies.  When the free market is left to take care of things,
people with lots of money will get the very best, people with less
money get much worse, and people with little or no money get nothing.

Currently, rich people are favored by our government, but under your
system, it would be much worse, since favoring the rich is the 
foundation of your system.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:04:28 GMT

tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:

>What's his face, the economist demonstrated
>years ago that (oh yeah, Keynes) periodicity in a free market can be
>come infinite (i.e., the depression, a contraction in economic growth,
>can last forever, so the government must interfere to end it).

Keynes was completely discredited when many conditions he predicted
could not occur happened, such as the stagflation in the 1970s. I'd
say that using him as a source doesn't add much credibility to your
arguments.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:17:58 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) quotes this idea
from Richard Dawkins:
 
>Natural Selection may favor a species whose overall interest does
>not require its individuals to sacrifice thier own interests over
>a species whose overall interest does require self-sacrifice.
 
Hmmmm.  Perhaps the only difference between these two cultures
is not a difference in what they give up, but in how most of the
individuals in these societies define their own welfare.
 
"I came seeking mercy, not sacrifice.  Go learn what this means."
-some guy.
 
There is also another possibilty:  It seems as if we are all trying
to dream up reasons why we shouldn't chew up other people and use
them for our own ends.  Gads I've tried...  how I've tried.  Suppose
for a moment that there is no reason.  Suppose there is no heaven
or hell.  Suppose it really is in my best interest to chew up
other people.  What if I choose to show you mercy simply because
I know what it feels like to be chewed up, and I don't want to make
you feel that way.  That would make love a completely FREE act.
There's no stinking reward.  I know I'm really slitting my own
throat by being kind to you, but I decide to do it anyway...
Am I a fool?  Am I a failure?  Is there any meaning in what I
have done?   Who knows, but one thing I know is that I acted freely.
 
Libarbarianism may require people to act logically, and love
requires one to act mercifully.
 
Glenn                                       glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
If I only had a heart.  -Tin Man
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com (Craig Presson)
Subject: Re: Anarchy as a newsgroup?
Reply-To: craig@jido.b11.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
	<DRW.92Sep16114702@euclid.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep23.221315.28694@shearson.com>
	<1992Sep24.040134.3921@hellgate.utah.edu> <BvFCvC.J21@rahul.net>
	<1992Oct1.100614.8872@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.100614.8872@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
[...]
   >Nevertheless, a big difference between private companies and the
   >government is that you can't switch governments without changing your
   >residence.

   And with multi-national monopolies, you can't switch at all.  

Not that again.
To prove that you're not talking empty nonsense, you must give one
example of a "multi-national monopoly" that can support itself without
government intervention.

(Take your time, I'll wait)

-- Craig Presson

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth)
Subject: Re: Help!!!
Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:48:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.232325.23380@ultb.isc.rit.edu> entpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>PLease encourage your nihilist friend to drop his plan to vote
>Republican to hasten the economic collapse.  It's sorta the
>same logic of being cruel to waiters and waitresses to hasten
>the revolution.

Thankfully for the nihilist, nothing he does in the voting booth
will have any effect on the economy or anything else.  When the only
game in town is rigged, make a new game.  Voting is not your "voice"
if nobody is listening.

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:57:49 GMT

In article <LV5TRB5w165w@netlink.cts.com>, tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
|> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
|> > Groups of guys in blue uniforms? Gangs of men calling themselves "the
|> > government"? How is that different from lynch mobs (besides being
|> > paid?)
|> > 
|> > >What we need is an anarchy with checks and balances... but I guess that's
|> > >not anarchy.
|> > 
|> > Anarchy doesn't mean chaos. Market forces can be used to check the
|> > power of organizations under an anarchist system. All anarchy means is
|> > no monopoly on the legitimized use of force.
|> > 
|> 
|> the goverment (much as I hate to sound like I am defending it) at
|> least has checks and balances.  Even the IRS can be appealed.
|> I've already addressed the fallacy of Market forces in a recent 
|> posting.  I agree there should be no monopoly on the legitimized use
|> of force.  I should be able to say "there is a gun pointing out of
|> your terminal, sign over all your stocks and bonds to me".
|> 
	Governments, like the U.S.'s, may have at one time had good checks and
balances that preserved individual rights but there is a tendency for governments
to become bigger, more bureaucratic, and more oppressive.  It is for this reason
that I do not believe in government.  I am not an expert on private legal system
though I have read some material.  And there is a lot out there.  Most seem to say
that over time the legal system will evolve to handle new problems as the laws 
themselves will be produced by market forces.  Medieval merchant law evolved in
this way.  Market power is less centralized than government power so there is
less to fear from it.