tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (09/05/85)
In article <3476@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >Sometimes something is so simple that it can be hard to see it: >What I want in the absence of a political system is, simply, >the absence of any political system. That last sentence CERTAINLY should go into net.politics.slogans . JoSH, the absence of something does not always imply the presence of something else. At least not to me. Does a state of human nature such that no political system is present exist? Define your terms, please. >It is really a good idea >at this point to go back and separate two questions which statists >try hard to confuse: > >(a) what good do people derive from political systems? > >(b) why do political systems exist? > >Now it is easy to point to lots of specific benefits to specific people >from any given political system, but it is much more difficult (indeed, >I believe impossible) to show that people in general derive more >benefit from political systems than detriment. Term problem again: what is "people in general"? I don't understand that it isn't just another slogan. >On the other hand, it is easy to see why political systems exist: >They form a stable state whereby one group holds power over society, >and uses it to obtain benefits from the rest of society; because they >benefit, they use the power to maintain the status quo, or rather >to increase the amount of control they exert. A political system >in a society is, simply put, a positive feedback phenomenon, and >will increase until the society begins to break down under its >depredations. Slippery slope madness, this. To use power to maintain the status quo does not mean to maintain the status quo, or to increase the amount of control. >To understand what a society without a government would actually >be like, it helps to notice that the guys sitting in the legislature >do not actually do anything but talk. All the actual services, >police, firemen, social workers, adjudicators, garbagemen in many >places, and so forth, are merely hired help. The legislature is >only a decision-making mechanism which decides how many of who will >be hired to do what. The market forms an equally effective, and >considerably more fair, decision-making mechanism for society. "only", "equally effective", "considerably more fair": all these opinions are supposed to be obvious to the rest of us? I recall an Israeli sociologist who once asked a question at a talk, "Do you know if 'effectiveness' exists in any language but English?" I think he knew around 5 or 6 European languages. What a load of slogans, this. > >--JoSH Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/10/85)
In article <321@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >In article <3476@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>What I want in the absence of a political system is, simply, >>the absence of any political system. > >That last sentence CERTAINLY should go into net.politics.slogans . JoSH, >the absence of something does not always imply the presence of something >else. At least not to me. Does a state of human nature such that no >political system is present exist? Define your terms, please. Offhand and witless insults like this add nothing to a discussion. My sentence above was a direct reply to a question given in exactly the terms of the question. Ie. "What do you want in the absence of a political system?" The question assumes that the absence of a political system is possible. >>I believe [it's] impossible to show that people in general derive more >>benefit from political systems than detriment. > >Term problem again: what is "people in general"? I don't understand >that it isn't just another slogan. cf the Constitution of the US, "We the people", "the common defense", "the general welfare", "ourselves and our posterity". It *is* just a slogan, but it is a slogan of the statist status quo. >>... A political system >>in a society is, simply put, a positive feedback phenomenon, and >>will increase until the society begins to break down under its >>depredations. > >Slippery slope madness, this. To use power to maintain the status >quo does not mean to maintain the status quo, or to increase the >amount of control. "To use eggs to make omelets does not mean to make omelets, or to have breakfast." >>To understand what a society without a government would actually >>be like, it helps to notice that the guys sitting in the legislature >>do not actually do anything but talk. All the actual services, >>police, firemen, social workers, adjudicators, garbagemen in many >>places, and so forth, are merely hired help. The legislature is >>only a decision-making mechanism which decides how many of who will >>be hired to do what. The market forms an equally effective, and >>considerably more fair, decision-making mechanism for society. > >"only", "equally effective", "considerably more fair": all these >opinions are supposed to be obvious to the rest of us? >Tony Wuersch Does Tony think (a) Something I say must be obvious to be correct, or (b) No unobvious views should be allowed on the net, or (c) Anything not obvious "to the rest of us" will be wasted on "the rest of us"? Apparently Tony would like the general who burned the Library at Alexandria: anything which is not obvious to him is heretical-- and that which is, is of course superfluous. --JoSH
walker@oberon.UUCP (Mike Walker) (09/15/85)
What is a society? One can think of a society as a people with
customs and institutions for relating with one and other. These
social instituions are what organize daily life. Some of them are
informal (not proscribed by coersive rules) like dating. Some are
formal (proscribed by coersive rules) like taxation. Government is
formal. It has to be since hurts some people and helps others.
People won't go along voluntarily if they're going to be hurt. So
government must threaten to hurt them even more if they don't go
along. Dating is not coersive. If someone doesn't like it, they
just go their separate way. Noncoersive or voluntary instituions
must be mutually (though not necessarily equally) benificial or one
of the parties would leave. What people like me and possible JoSh
want is to replace government by an arrangement of informal
institutions to organize society. By being being informal they do
not coerce (well they don't initiate coercion). Thus presumably
all human relationships must be beneficial or one of the parties
would terminate the relationship.
Perhaps Tony thinks that it is alright to hurt some people to help
others, to use some people as mere means to his ends without the
reciprocation of a voluntary relationship. Thus he likes coersive
institutions such as government since it allows him to use people as
mere means (slaves) to his ends without doing the dirty work (the
violence) himself. Doesn't it seem a little contridictory to hurt
people in order to help other people?
Anyhow, if the "fabric of society" is woven of chains then I'd like
to see that fabric torn. Instead it should be a fabric of
cooperation.
Mike Walker
walker@oberon.UUCP (I think?)
PS yeah it was that fabric of society remark that ticked me off
and initiated this diatribe