From: rael@ll.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:40:29 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <cannon.25.718136828@scs.unt.edu> cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460)) speaketh thus:
[...]
>OK, now in your utopian society how would this socialization come about?  
>How do you plan on teaching people to behave themseleves?

I  don't plan on teaching them anything---that is my point. I believe, and,
as  I  said,  I can offer no real evidence for this, that if freed from the
oppressive  constraints  of  society  today,  people  will  come to do this
naturally.

[...]
>>First,  I  take  the  term  ``freedom''  to  be an inherent good, exercised
>>inasmuch as it does not inhibit others from exercising it. People should be
>>free  to  make  their  own  choices,  including  not  participating  in the
>>decision-making  of  a  community.  The  community  itself should decide by
>>discussion  and  debate  what  are  relevant,  healthy,  etc. activities to
>>undertake.  That  is,  the  community  itself  should  first decide what is
>>``good''  then go about trying to implement it itself. There are some basic
>>things  that  need  to  be in place, such as free access to information and
>>places to meet and so on.
>
>What makes you think they are going to agree on a 'good'?  If it is so easy 
>to agree on what is 'good', then why haven't we done it before?  This 
>is the point I attempted to make when I first posted this paradox?  Perhaps 
>I should not have couched it in a scenario.  Utopian idealists always have 
>this naive view of man.  They seem to feel that as soon as you get rid of 
>goverment and religion everyone across the world will join hands and 
>sing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and ....."  This just won't 
>happen. Governments don't make Nazi's, Nazi's make goverments.  You are not 
>dealing with darker sides of humanity.  Wars are not just waged by 
>governments, they are also waged by individuals.  Why do you think the 
>individual wars will stop, just because you took everybodys flags away?

Are  you implying that I am a ``Utopian idealist''? If so, I can assure you
that  I have no illusions about human nature being composed of only virtue,
honesty,  benevolence, etc. I recognize fully that humans are quite capable
of  horrendous acts. However, as a starting point, I might suggest you take
a  look  at  some  of  the  more  recent readings on native American Indian
culture  before  contact  with  the Europeans. I'm not trying to imply that
they  had  a  ``perfect'' culture, but they had modes of social cooperation
that  were not based on massive coercion and they had many elements of what
I  would consider to be a much more just and humane society. As I have said
before,  I  can  only  give  you  my  belief that humans are more likely to
cooperate   with  others  rather  than  engage  in  genocide  and  violence
generally.  I  offer  no  evidence  for this, nor can anyone offer any real
counter evidence. That is, I can no more ``prove'' my assertion that humans
were  ``born  to be free'' than can anyone else who asserts that humans are
``inherently evil.'' It's mostly a question of hope, not fact.

About  the  Nazi's  et al., I realize that individuals make up governments,
obviously,  but part of my argument is that concentration of power tends to
corrupt  natural  human tendencies, and that in order for the natural human
tendencies  of  concern for others to flourish, these concentrated forms of
power  must  be abolished. Perhaps this is naive, but I see no other choice
but to go on this assumption.

[...]
>>I  have  no  doubt that the Nazi's ``actually believed what they were doing
>>was  right.''  We  know  they are wrong because we use our innate ideas for
>>freedom  to  guide  us.  You  seem  to  want  a  proof based upon something
>>approaching physics. Unfortunately I, nor anyone I know of, can offer this.
>>I  can  only  say that I base my condemnation on the Nazi atrocities on the
>>same  basis  that I condemn child abuse---namely I feel a violent repulsion
>>to  seeing  the  suffering  of innocents at the hands of sick people, and I
>>feel  that  most healthy people feel this as well. Your point about the use
>>of  animals  for  food,  while  perhaps  interesting  in other respects, is
>>irrelevant.
>Yes I want a proof!  What's wrong with that? "Innate ideas for freedom", 
>what does this mean?  Are you saying that deep inside of us we all know 
>black and white what is good and bad.  What makes you say this?

First,  there is no such thing as ``proof'' in a literal sense. If you have
doubts  about  this, read Kurt G\:odel's famous essay on the subject. Also,
you  might  actually read some of the material I have quoted, starting with
some  of  Chomsky's  work from the late 60s and early 70s for some evidence
relating to this.

>What do you mean irrelevant!  You said it yourself: "I feel a violent 
>repulsion to seeing the suffering of innocents at the hands of sick 
>people."  What did a cow ever do to you?  What makes humans so superior to 
>everthing else in the universe, that we have the right to kill anything 
>different from us?  Why can't cows have freedom too if its such a cosmic 
>natural law.  Why doesn't your innate non-goodness detector go off when you 
>see a cow slaugtered?

It  is irrelevant to the question of human freedom. And unfortunately, I do
value human life over animal life. To test this, if I were forced to make a
choice  (perhaps  by  a Nazi) to kill either a person (say, yourself) and a
cow, I would not hesitate to kill the cow. Perhaps you might think---as you
seem to by the tone of your posting---that I should just flip a coin and if
you  lost  out,  that  I should choose to kill you. I'm sorry, but I cannot
agree  with  that.  It  might  be  that as we mature morally (which is much
behind our technological maturity, in my opinion), we will come to view the
slaughter of cows as morally repugnant. I myself do have reservations about
this and feel that animals should be treated with much more respect than is
now  given  to them. However, to claim equivalence between humans and other
animals  is  something  I cannot tolerate. In situations in which we have a
choice,  I  think you are right to be outraged at the slaughter of animals,
but again, this is beside the point.

>>>Once again, who are you to decide that the rich shouldn't be rich and that 
>>>your community can do it better?
>>
>>I unfortunately can't decode this one.
>
>Simple, are not the rich simply people achieving thier maximum potential?  

Yes,  perhaps,  but  at  the  expense  of others---a principle which I find
insupportable.  I  see  no  connection  between the efficacy of the rich in
carrying  out  their  wishes  and  the  right  of people to be uncoerced by
others. You seem to be missing the point here.

>They are good at their business and rewarded justly.  Why do you have the 
>right to come along and tell them thier not doing it right?  Why aren't the 
>rich 'free' in your society?

I  disagree  that they are ``rewarded justly.'' And who said anything about
``doing it right?'' What they do is exploit others, which they do extremely
well.  I  never  claimed that the rich were not free. You should take a bit
more time to read what I say instead of getting angry.

Bill Lear (rael@ll.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy