From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:30:58 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep29.102922.10916@hellgate.utah.edu>, galt%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep29.151210.13226@athena.mit.edu>, danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|> >In article <1a7pefINNs0s@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
|> >	Yes, but it is easier to defend oneself against an individual or a
|> >company than an army.
|> 
|> Unless the "company" is an army.  It may be true that you have a better
|> chance defending yourself against thugs hired by Donald Trump than 
|> against the U.S. Army.  But I would be more afraid of Donald Trump's
|> army than the U.S. Army.  If I criticize the government, there are
|> laws to prevent the Army from assassinating me, and these laws are
|> usually followed.  What would prevent Trump's thugs from killing me
|> if I was about to expose some kind of personal scandal? 
|>  

	What would prevent him now?  One can hire an assassin today at the right
price.  And do you really think the police today can protect you.

	And you may not have much fear of the police today, but many people do. 
If you are poor and black and live in an inner city, I hear that there is some
police abuse going on.  And if you want to do an activity that is illegal but
your own business (drinking beer at age 20), you may be harrassed by the
authorities.
 
|> >	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.
|> 
|> 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. 

	It is strange that you have control over George Bush's power because I
don't.  I may vote for someone else but the chances of my vote changing the
outcome is nearly nil.  And the likely alternative of Clinton is no better so
that I would say that we, under this represenative democracy, have no power.  But
in an anarchical society, I could buy protection services and have direct control
over my life.  
	
	And please stop whining about the poor.  The poor in America are most
likely to be victims of both crime and police abuse.  Government provided law and
order fails more for the poor than for anyone else.  And do not pretend that the
poor could not afford protection.  They could form volunteer patrol groups for
free at the worse.  More likely, unionized police will be far cheaper than
overpaid cops today.  Productivity increases will reduce costs of protection and
the fact that there are no taxes will give most people the means to buy these
services.  The helpless will be protected by family and friend networks and if
all else fails by charity as charities have always existed to help the worst off.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy