mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/11/85)
[Comes the revolution, we'll shoot the laborers, and automate.]
The following was found hiding in an anarchist document. It is presented
with very little comment. All errors can be assumed to be the transcribers.
----------------------------------------
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic
transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.
THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market
through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges
(backed by coercion).
TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in
which the state collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed
forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in
such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at
its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.
PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage
granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for
private benefit.
USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in
which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes
tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic
transactions.
LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free
Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes
tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.
TARIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in
which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete
equally with those produced inside the State.
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of
tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market
while pretending to exemplify it.
CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims
allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism,
tariff, and sometimes taxation.
LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to
correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing
laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass
another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more
subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is
compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden."
SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power
to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting
capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting
it black.
ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market
operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms
of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market
people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate.
LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily
choose to cooperate more often than to compete.
----------------------------------------
The little comment: This points out another major problem with what some
(not all) socialists want. They're going to replace the little monopolies
and oligopolies with one big monopoly (on *everything*), and give it the
power to shoot its competition with impunity. And this is supposed to be an
improvement.
<mikemrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/11/85)
In article <815@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) writes: > The following was found hiding in an anarchist document. It is presented > with very little comment. All errors can be assumed to be the transcribers. > > ---------------------------------------- > > DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS Wow. This is a classic example of the dictum in 1984 that if you can control the language, you can control thought. I've long heard that applied to Marxism, but it is entertaining to see it applied in an anarchist/libertarian manner. > FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic > transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion. > > THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market > through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges > (backed by coercion). Note that this definition of THE STATE applies equally well to your local bully, gang, neighborhood association, town militia, and actually any individual including yourself who tries anything with teeth in it. It is flexible enough to recognize a multiplicity of states at many levels. The crucial point is that there is no line at which they say "state" ends and legitimate enforcement of ownership or rights begins. (I can only think of one person who really advocated owning nothing, and practiced it: a Greek philosopher whose name I can't remember.) Nor do I see a suggestion of a substitute for a state to prevent outsiders from this system from ravaging it. > TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in > which the state collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed > forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in > such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at > its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects. > > PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage > granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for > private benefit. Note that the term privilege is here defined as anything. I suppose they mean that privilege is anything one person has that another might want. Such as land, wealth, food, organs.... The crucial point is that there is no line at which they say privilege ends and right begins. > USURY... LANDLORDISM... TARIFF... CAPITALISM... CONSERVATISM... LIBERALISM... > SOCIALISM... Interesting definitions. > ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market > operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms > of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market > people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. > LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily > choose to cooperate more often than to compete. Actually, these definitions fit some aspects of some American Indian cultures fairly well. Tribalism replaces statism, and many of the "ills" defined above are nearly eliminated. However, I would bet that those "ills" are replaced by violent competition on the personal and tribal levels, to reduce pressure on the resources in demand. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (03/11/85)
What anarchist document? Whose anarchist document? Let's give credit where credit is due...
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/12/85)
> ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market > operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms > of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market > people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. > LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily > choose to cooperate more often than to compete. > (courtesy of) <mike Hmm. I predict that in the Free Market people... No, *Americans* (or Westerners, if you like) would on the whole voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate, and it is for precisely that reason that I do not perceive anarchy as desirable in a culture like our own. Baba
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/14/85)
From Baba: Hmm. I predict that in the Free Market people... No, *Americans* (or Westerners, if you like) would on the whole voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate, and it is for precisely that reason that I do not perceive anarchy as desirable in a culture like our own. Does this mean that you think that you should stop people from doing what ``on the whole they would volunatarily choose to do'' simply because you are resistent to changes in culture? Or do you think that there is something morally wrong in competing? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura Baba
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/17/85)
> From Baba: > > Hmm. I predict that in the Free Market people... No, *Americans* > (or Westerners, if you like) would on the whole voluntarily choose > to compete more often than to cooperate, and it is for precisely that > reason that I do not perceive anarchy as desirable in a culture like > our own. > > Does this mean that you think that you should stop people from doing what > ``on the whole they would volunatarily choose to do'' simply because you > are resistent to changes in culture? Or do you think that there is > something morally wrong in competing? > > Laura Creighton > Have you stopped beating your mother yet? ;-) Sorry not to be willing to offer you either idiocy, but if you want to talk about it, sure. Competition is no more good or bad than, say, magnetic induction. It's an important phenomenon in human behavior, and it can be put to a number of mutually beneficial uses. But there are times when it is highly undesirable. To my eyes, American society has a structural component based on balancing a generally productive, agressive competitive ethic against a system of legal constraints that prevent competition from fruiting into predation. People internalize relatively little restraint, and very often take the attitude that "if it's legal, it's OK". The order of an anarchist society arises solely from the self-discipline of its citizens. Anarchy in a morally lazy society is a catastophe. Baba
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/22/85)
How are you going to make people not morally lazy if you make the business of morality somebody else's (ie the government's) business? All the more reason to assume that ``if it is legal it is okay''. Actually, I think that you prove my point. You think that there is something wrong with competition -- that it somehow degenerates into predation. What keeps us safe from the predation of government? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/27/85)
> Laura Creighton: > How are you going to make people not morally lazy if you make the > business of morality somebody else's (ie the government's) business? I can think of several ways, but isn't it up to those who argue for the dissolution of government to solve that problem? > Actually, I think that you prove my point. You think that there is > something wrong with competition -- that it somehow degenerates into > predation. You had accused me of finding something *morally* wrong with competition. That competition can take on a pathological character doesn't make it immoral. It does, however, mean that competition should not be seen as positive in and of itself. Like salt (and government), we can suffer from either too little or too much. > What keeps us safe from the predation of government? Courts, elections, insurrection, emigration, that sort of thing. Baba