From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: warfare
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:35:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

danny@athena.mit.edu (Daniel A Lagattuta) writes:
>   Love can work with small groups of people (and only sometimes) but
>cannot work for a society composed of millions.
Ack... again I think we have very different of opinions by what working
means.  I tend to see a society that has the L.A. riots, a huge disparity
between rich and poor, and one that goes to war as NOT working.
 
>Altruism exists but it is limited.  Hayek's ,"The Fatal Conceit", is
>concerned with this issue.  Cooperation and sharing worked fine for small
>hunting and gathering communities but when one tries to apply the values
>of those societies to an indistrial society of millions, one gets
>totalitarian societies.  He calls the belief that one can have a modern
>society based on primitive values the fatal conceit of the socialists.
 
Fortunately I do not suffer from the fatal conceit of the socialists.
For me love and socialist governments are totally incompatible.  I do
not believe in forcing people to give up their property.  What I favor
is PURE anarchy.  A socialist goverment is NOT pure anarchy.  What I
propose is VOLUNTARY non-propertarianism.  Thus while totalitarianism
is a problem for any brand of forced non-propertarianism, it isn't a
problem for what I support.  Your totalitarianism point may apply to many
socialists, but as far as what I am talking about it is a non-point.
 
I do not see love as limited.  I see everything else as limiting and
love as completely unlimited.  Love is making existence more meaningful
using an infinite variety of non-harmful means.
 
I also contest the point that a loving set of values is a "primitive"
set of values.  I'd substitute "essential" for "primitive".  I see the
values that include the market system as a barbaric primitive set of
values.  I view the self-centered capitalists and the war mongers as
having a primitive set of values that have not evolved since the days
of the cave men.
 
>We should instead accept that the market system is the best system for our
>modern society and leave altruism to its rightful plave in the home and
>among friends.
 
Ah, you favor group selfishness rather than individual selfishness.
The problem is that if mom or dad is a selfish money earner who provides
for the family materially, their caveperson set of group values tend to
spill over onto how they treat their family and friends.  Thus Johnny may
have a room full of toys, but mom and dad are never around to spend time
with Johnny.  They are off busy earning money.  And so they hug their son
with invisible hands and arms, and they love him with the invisible hearts
of all good capitalists.  Is this what Bush/Quale mean by family values?
 
I guess what I am trying to say is hey, maybe there are some flaws with
a system based on capitalism, cut-throat competition, and retaliation,
and maybe just maybe there is a better way.  Not that I expect you to
give away all your property today, (I can't even bring myself to do
that at this point) but try to see that we all have something in common.
We all have feelings and needs.  And maybe just once you will ease off
just a little on cutting someone else's throat to save your own.   And
maybe you be able to see your action as a success and not a failure.
 
Glenn                                  glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy