HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy and Evolution (was Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT)
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct4143450@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes...
>Thanks for the honest answers.  I guess I'm too cynical about human
>nature to believe that left-anarchy would ever be practical or stable.

	Agreed.  Especially since left-anarchists have difficulty answering
even the simple questions on how conflicts would be resolved between people
without government.  It seems that history has already answered with the
right-leaning anarchies that existed in Iceland and Ireland.  Property
rights, when properly defined, may solve may conflicts between people.

> 
>I'm also not convinced that anarchocapitalism would work, though
>perhaps it might.
> 
>Anarchocapitalism requires that most people act rationally, and I
>think this would be difficult to achieve.  On the other hand, most
>people no longer believe in evil spirits and ghosts and witches, so
>at least some progress has been made.
>

	Ah, but you forget to mention that GOVERNMENT requires that
its officials act rationally too.  At least anarchocapitalism allows
a safety valve by giving people choices.  Actually, I don't expect
anarchocapitalism to develop large police forces.  Ostracism is such
a powerful motivator that tiny and lean catch-an-outlaw services would
likely be the norm.  Read Bruce Benson's _The Enterprise of Law_ for
a rational for this view.


Mark Sulkowski
Anarchocapitalist for Andre Marrou
Go Libertarian Party!
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:20:31 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

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.
 
|> 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.
 
>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?
 
>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?
 
>Owning property is fun.  I like what money can buy.  You should lighten
>up a bit and enjoy life a little.
 
Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Glenn                                         glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
 
P.S.  Money can't buy you love.
From: ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Date: 28 Sep 1992 23:08:08 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: hailstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep28.144607.13489@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>
>	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.
>
I don't think this would happen in a libertarian utopia.  If people are bombarded from birth
that the only reasonable way to act is in "rational self-interest", they would have to be some
kinda rebel to want to help other people gratis.  Would anyone who embraced libertarian 
philosophy participate in charity?

>	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.

Sure, power over other people.  

Jim Ausman
-- 
	"You are not thinking.  You are merely being logical."
				-Niels Bohr to A. Einstein 
				(during their famous debates on QM)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Monopolies and Cartels
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<DRW.92Sep29193431@euclid.mit.edu> <1992Oct3.210111.13032@shearson.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:01:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.210111.13032@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
   Actually, Standard Oil had lost a considerable fraction of its market
   share at the time the US first moved to break it up and looked like it
   would have fallen without intervention. [...]

Thanks for the information.  I'll have to think it over.

   Monopolies and cartels are not seen to be stable in the real world.
   They are a chimerica -- a threat that doesn't really exist.

Not exactly -- it's just that they're unstable over the long run.
Rockefeller *still* did found one of the great dynastic fortunes, and
he got that money by gouging his customers.  ("Gouging" in the sense
that he destroyed competitors and then raised prices above the
previous market equilibrium.  Despite being a capitalist at heart, I
still call that gouging.)  No doubt in the long run, Standard Oil
could still have squeezed out all the small and inefficient kerosine
dealers even under the present anti-trust regime.  I'd rather S.O. did
it that way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

An angle that should be exposited by libertarians is one significant
difference between the present economic landscape and that of the
"Robber Barons" of the late 1800s -- the enormous amount of investment
capital now available via the capital markets.  Rockefeller, Morgan,
Carnegie, Ford, et al. actually *owned* their companies, so that they
personally supplied the capital of their ventures.  This provided an
extremely high barrier to entry -- e.g., one couldn't organize a large
steel company unless one personally owned enough money to build the
mills.

These days, one merely needs to be able to convince someone that one
can turn a profit in order to raise essentially infinite amounts of
money.  This lowers the barriers to entry into many markets, and keeps
players honest through "virtual competitors".  For instance, even
though airlines are dropping like flies in the US, there's little
danger of a monopoly developing, for if by some chance ticket prices
rose high enough that running an airline became profitable again, one
could quickly raise the $100 million or so needed to start one.

The invention of the junk bond has had a similar effect in making
corporate managments operate their corporations for the stockholders'
benefit rather than their own...

Dale
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: black herring on econ
Date: 29 Sep 1992 01:29:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4


          Matthew  19
 
           16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master,
          what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
           17  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there
          is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt
          enter into life, keep the commandments.
           18  He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt not
          kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not
          steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
           19  Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt
          love thy neighbour as thyself.
           20  The young man saith unto him, All these things have I
          kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
           21  Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and]
          sell what you possess, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
          have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
           22  But when the young man heard that saying, he went away
          sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
           23. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto
          you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of
          heaven.
           24  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to
          go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter
          into the kingdom of God.
           25  When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly
          amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
           26  But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men
          this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
 
 
What can I say Thant?   Is all I can do walk away sorrowfully?
Say it was nice in theory...   but I can't handle the reality...
Is this what I am made of?
From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Date: 5 Oct 1992 17:23:17 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

>Simple, are not the rich simply people achieving thier maximum potential?
Ahh yes the maximum potential for a human being is to amass as much
material wealth as (s)he can.  OPEN YOUR MIND!  Discover far greater
goals for yourself.
 
>They are good at their business and rewarded justly.
There are more meaningful standards to strive for than justice.
Try Compassion.
 
>Why do you have the right to come along and tell them thier not
>doing it right?
It's called freedom of speech.  Deal with it.  It's the means where
those who have discovered some really neat things can try to
communicate them to those who don't quite have the creativity to
discover the neat ideas for themselves.  But it often makes one
feel like one is trying to explain calculus to an ape.
 
>Why aren't the rich 'free' in your society?
I would let the rich do whatever they want with their property.
To you they would be free.  To me it would seem as if they were
slaves to their property, and to the violence and coercion which
they are based on.  (Again, explaining calculus to an ape.)
Freedom is rough.... ain't it?
 
Glenn                           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 15:05:53 GMT

In article <q64TRB3w165w@netlink.cts.com>, tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
|> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
|> > 	There will be checks and balance through the free market.  Consumer
|> > Reports and other consumer watch groups, the media, and word of mouth would t
|> > people which security companies are the most efficient and least corrupt.  Pe
|> > would stop subsribing to ones that were bad.  There is, of course, some room 
|> > corruption but with any problem with anarchy, one must compare it to the pres
|> > system, where I do not feel particularly safe.  A good reference source on 
|> > a decentralized system of law and order woulde by Bruce Benson's "The Enterpr
|> > of Law."  In it, he outlines the evolution of our law and order system and ta
|> > about how state run systems of law and order are inefficient relative to priv
|> > law and order.
|> 
|> Free market, word of mouth, media?  If they worked, why aren't we in a
|> an anarchic utopia now?  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).  Free
|> markets favor the MOST corrupt.  Wanna buy a Rolex, cheap?  This comes
|> from scarcity, the most basic of economic concepts and the need for
|> governments.  It is the most difficult concept for anarchy to deal
|> with.  True, there is enough food in the world for no one to have to
|> starve, but how do you convince people who are afraid of starving to
|> not hoard?  It is a distribution problem, not a production problem.
|> I suppose a sufficiently advanced government could brainwash everyone
|> from birth to share, and to make itself go away.  Is that anarchy?
|> Personally, I have come to believe that the first thing we have to
|> do is convince people that a steady state, not a growth economy is
|> desireable.  I don't see how to do this anarchically.
|> 
	The Great Depression was hardly caused by lack of government.  One should
look at Friedman, et.al. to read how the Federal Reserve and the Federal
Government screwed things up.  And growth is what people want.  It is only
through growth that we can all become rich.  And only through free markets, not
through central planning, can this happen.  And nothing is freer than anarchy.  

	And the reason why we do not have anarchy now has many reasons. 
Our anacestors believed in limited government.  But government does not stay
limited.  So today we have a leviathan state.  And it does not want to wish
itself away.  Once established governments tend to stay.  A change in the general
philosophy of people plus other factors though might lead to them fading away. 
But just because we do not have that type of society today does not mean it is
not better.  
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 19:55:44 GMT


In article <1afglrINN679@agate.berkeley.edu>, ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:

> For the group, sure, but not neccesarily for the individual.  The problem
> with setting up a society which reward competion first and cooperation
> last is that people will tend to behave competitively.  

Trade *is* cooperation.  In the free-market, the competition is for who
will offer the privelege of cooperating to whom.  The whole point of the
free-market is to put cooperation first, because that is the way wealth
is generated.


> For instance, it
> is in my economic best interest to remove all the smog emmissions
> equipment on my automobile.  I will get better gas mileage and more power
> from my car engine.  I will pollute more, but the minuscule amount will
> not affect my own health.  However, if everyone behaved this way, we
> would all soon be sick.  How do you resolve this sort of dilemma without
> governments?

The Reason Foundation did a study that showed that 10% of the cars on
the road put out 50% of the pollution.  So in the case of cars it 
actually *does* make sense to prosecute individual polluters.  (There
is a device now available that measures emissions in the field.  This
would allow 'pollution traps' to be set up in the same way that speed
traps are now.)

(Also, it is worth pointing out that cars as a mode of transportation
have been hevily subsidized by the government nearly from the very start.
It is a safe assumption that had the government not done so, there would
be other (likely more efficient and varied) forms of transportation
available.)

The general answer to your concern can be found in David Friedman's
book The_Machinery_of_Freedom.  He extends the concept of credit such
that it can be used to enforce against these kinds of transgressions.

thant
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Yet more on PPL systems
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<DRW.92Oct2110056@euclid.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct5.163450.16520@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.163450.16520@athena.mit.edu> danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
   Most international eveidence would suggest that more govt. hurts economic
   growth with alll else equal.

Certainly, the countries in which intervention into the market is done
to reduce the social stresses of capitalism tend to have lower growth
rates (as might be expected).  But it seems that the highest growth
rates that have been sustained for a decade or more have been in the
economies of East Asia, where government intervention into the market
is explicitly to increase economic growth, rather than to improve
human comfort.

Perhaps both of these are to be expected -- production equals
consumption plus investment.  If the government tries to increase
consumption, investment will go down.  If the government tries to
increase investment, consumption will go down.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:47:16 GMT

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

>That sounds like government to me.  Lawsuits?  Courts?  Keep following
>that train of thought and you will wind up with a Bill of Rights!
>The sarcasm here is intended to try to prod somebody into explaining
>to me how an anarchic system can fulfill the functions of checks and
>balances  that  the American style constitution uses to protect
>people/property.

Lawsuits and courts have often existed completely outside the realm of
coercive government. The entire Icelandic system during its anarchist
phase was such a system -- there were well developed legal structures
and court systems, but all enforcement was a private matter. (In so
far as everyone accepted a monopoly court system, the system may be
said to be less than perfectly propertarian anarchist, but it was so
close that we can ignore that for all practical purposes). Another
famous example was the medieval merchant courts that developed modern
commercial law -- they were completely private! They had no government
affiliation and depended entirely on ostracism as a means of
enforcement. These courts developed virtually everything you are used
to in contract law. Ever sign a note or endorse a check? Those
concepts was developed under the Law Merchant.

People often ascribe some mysterious power to government. Government
is just made up out of people like any other organization. Provided
other structures are widely accepted, there is no reason to believe
they will be less effective. Since competitive entities in the
marketplace have a strong incentive to improve their effectiveness
with time, there is in fact a far greater expectation on the side of
private entities than on the side of public ones, and historical
experience bears this out.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1992Sep29.181321.1831@shearson.com> <1afglrINN679@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:50:50 GMT

In article <1afglrINN679@agate.berkeley.edu> ausman@ocf.berkeley.edu (James Ausman) writes:
   For instance, it is in my economic best interest to remove all the
   smog emmissions equipment on my automobile.  I will get better gas
   mileage and more power from my car engine.  I will pollute more,
   but the minuscule amount will not affect my own health.  However,
   if everyone behaved this way, we would all soon be sick.  How do
   you resolve this sort of dilemma without governments?

Actually, this is not an example of Prisoner's Dilemma, but rather of
"The Tragedy of the Commons".  The difference is that in the
Prisoner's Dilemma, by defecting for a turn, you can apply a
punishment to the malefactor.  In the Tragedy of the Commons, by
defecting for a turn, you apply a punishment to all other players
indiscriminantly, whether they have been cooperating or defecting.  So
the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma analysis does not apply.  As far as I
know, the Tragedy of the Commons has not been analyzed similarly.

Dale
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta)
Subject: Re: The Anarchy Paradox
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:55:57 GMT

In article <19vejeINNos5@uwm.edu>, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
|> pmetzger@shearson.com writes:
|> >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.
|>  
|> Ahh yes... put power where it belongs, not in the hands of the
|> elected officals, but in the hands of the rich... NOT!   Money
|> controls too much power as it is.
|>  

	Money can only buy what people are willing to sell.  Governments will
take anything they want.  This is an important distinction.

|> 
|>  
|> 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.  First of all, there
is no such thing as THE RICH.  There are only individuals who happen to have
more assets than average.  
|>  
|> Legitimized use of force... legitimized yes... but never
|> legitimate...  You can legitimize violence and coercion all you
|> want... in your own mind...  to defend your riches... to protect
|> your hide...   to keep yourself comfortable...
|>  
|> This raises some questions...  suppose a person is relatively
|> more useful to society than most others...  does this person
|> deserve to be rewarded with great riches?  I would say no.
|> For me, the fact that the person is more useful is its own reward.
|
	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.
>  
|> I would say that someone who needs all kinds of riches either
|> A) does not have enough self esteem to realize that they are
|> useful and needs money to prove it to themself, or
|> B) doesn't value being useful, but instead values being rich.
|> Either case, in my view, is a clear sign of a sick mental state,
|> and a lack of love.  I also believe that mental sickness should
|> not be reinforced.  The fact that this form of mental disease is
|> reinforced perpetually in our society shows me that most people
|> suffer from this disorder.  In this situation I'm particularly
|> glad I don't feel obligated to change other people.
|>  
	Owning property is fun.  I like what money can buy.  You should lighten
up a bit and enjoy life a little.

						Daniel A. LaGattuta
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy