From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Which brand(s) of anarchy?
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:13:21 GMT

glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>What if I had the strength to sell all that I own...
>And give the money to the poor?  The strength to do
>this, even knowing what my life partner would think of
>this....  The strength to do this knowing that I
>wouldn't be able to afford college...  The strength
>to take all my dreams and flush them down the toilet...
>To be replaced by new dreams... new hopes...  far better
>ones...
> 
>What if Jim had the strength to put down his weapons, seeing
>full well the inhumane way we treat each other...  Knowing
>full well that those who have are going to beat down those
>who have not...  What if he had the strength not to
>retaliate, but instead channel all his passion into helping
>those who are beaten down, rather than bashing down those
>who oppress....  What if he could deal with being limited
>in how much he could help...  What if he could respect those
>who oppress, knowing that inside we all are wimps....
> 
>What if...  Why what if?  Why are we such wimps... Inside
>we all want a world of love...  We want it so bad we can
>taste it.... but we all flinch just before we reach it...
>why?   Intelligence.... Self preservation...
> 
>Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;
>and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

My apologies in advance for flaming, but...

Lets get real here. Creatures that don't try to preserve themselves
die off, leave no offspring, and are hung out to dry on the
evolutionary tree. All living things seek self preservation, first and
foremost. There is nothing wrong with this.

Some people think this means "dog eat dog", which is also hogwash:
people like Axelrod with his study of iterative prisoners dilemas
have shown conclusively that cooperation rather than defection tends
to be the best survival strategy in the long run.

I'd gloat and say that Ayn Rand had this all clear long ago, but hey,
I'm an objectivist.

Going back to the beginning, it takes great strength to give away all
your worldly goods because its foolish. If everyone did this, who
would be left to receive any goods? Would the ideal society have us
all naked offering all we have to each other. "Take my coat." "No, I
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.
By giving away all you have and becoming a beggar, you not only
eliminate all future contributions you can make to society in your
present capacity, but also eliminate all the useful investments you
can make with your goods, which would make all of society richer in
the long run.

Lastly being willing to use violence to protect yourself doesn't imply
that you are a naturally violent person. Many people would be willing
to kill to save their children's lives from an intruder in their
homes; few would be willing to use violence in their daily lives. It
is unnecessary to extrapolate people's behavior in extreme cases to
the normal course of affairs.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.usa.misc