XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po   
   itics.libertarian   
   XPost: talk.politics.libertarian   
   From: fred@fredwilliams.ca   
      
   On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:48, PeterBP wrote:   
      
   > Fred  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, PeterBP wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > Fred  wrote:   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >> >>         When the people *are* the state, there is no problem with   
   >> >>         them being dependent on themselves.   
   >> >   
   >> > That sounds awfully like circular logic combined with wishful   
   >> > thinking to me.   
   >> >   
   >>         What other way might there be for people to have control over   
   >>         their own lives?  Every other option I've ever heard of   
   >>         involves oppression, and violence.   
   >   
   > And you somehow think that a mere claim that people will "somehow" be   
   > transformed into being the state fully - will remove the coercion and   
   > opression that the state stands for and perpetually exerts?   
   >   
           Power attracts the psychopaths and we have to have a way to deal with   
   that.  I have a problem, however, with the word "perpetually."  There   
   is nothing to indicate that the problem need be perpetual.  It has   
   occurred before and corruption is a problem, I agree on that.  I   
   believe it's a problem that can be addressed.  One way to deal with   
   abuses of power is to spread the power thinly so that no one gets too   
   much of it.  All the cases of abuse of power so far are on rather   
   similar forms of government.  They are with countries that all use   
   money as a scarce commodity, for instance.   
      
      
      
   >>  People have to have power over their own lives and no one   
   >> must be allowed to oppress others.  Collective and all inclusive   
   >> government is the only answer.   
   >   
   > You do realize how self-contradictory the above two sentences are,   
   > surely?   
      
           Only to your way of thinking.  Like I say, when the people *are* the   
   government then there is no problem with them having power over   
   themselves:  Who better?   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> >>         When you are totally alone and powerless, then you are   
   >> >>         really "free,"   
   >> >   
   >> > Freedom is the antipode of powerlessness.   
   >> >   
   >>         Then people must act together in an organised fashion or they   
   >>         cannot   
   >> have freedom.  Only together and organised can we have any power,   
   >> Each of us struggling in our own way as individuals has hardly any   
   >> power at all.   
   >   
   > Nonsense. Every individual has power, though varying in extent and   
   > intensity.   
   >   
           Ever try to fight city hall?  How about the state of federal   
   governments?  It's rare that anyone even listens to individuals let   
   alone changes anything for them.  Groups, however, do get attention.   
   That's why workers unionise and people form NGOs to get their voices   
   heard.  That's why workers form cooperatives so they can take on   
   projects that they would never be able to do themselves.   
      
      
   >> but the point I'm making is that it doesn't help   
   >> them.  They still starve. Again,  Only by working together in an   
   >> organised fashion can we acquire our freedom.   
   >   
   > So one cannot be free if one starves?   
      
           What is such freedom worth.  Is one not more free if one finds a group   
   of neighbours and organises with them to grow food and not starve?  How   
   about slavery?  Slaves are individuals and they are usually managed by   
   far fewer masters and guards that the number of slaves.  How to the   
   slave masters control that many slaves?  Simple they keep them   
   disorganised.  If they are all individuals and not acting as a   
   collective group, they cannot organise to free themselves.   
   Individualism is what keeps them powerless and enslaved, even though   
   the slave masters are always telling them that they are free.   
   >   
   > You need to precisely define exactly what you mean by freedom.   
   >   
           I will if you will.   
      
   >>  C'mon guys it's not that   
   >> complicated.   
   >   
   > Actually it is, and your talking around the questions does not help,   
   > but it does tell a lot more thank you may think.   
   >   
           You're so involved with contradicting every obvious little point, I can   
   only conclude that you are a propagandist.  Nobody can be that stupid.   
      
   >>   
   >> >> and elsewhere.   
   >> >> When people start to work together as a team and provide for each   
   >> >> other, that's what we call a social contract.   
   >> >   
   >> > Right. But the state is not this voluntary banding together, if   
   >> > that is what you're implying.   
   >> >   
   >>         It's supposed to be.   
   >   
   > Probably, but intent and result are two very very different things.   
   >   
           There is definitely a need to constantly monitor the process.   
      
   >>  It's not that now in your country or mine, but   
   >> that's what the concept of government is *supposed* to be!   
   >   
   > Maybe for some. But consider this - if government is voluntary, why   
   > does it need to use coercion to achieve its aims?   
      
           Ah, a question right out of the CIA rhetorical manual.  OK.   
           The government's job it to legislate and pass laws that keep people   
   from hurting each other.  Laws are not much good without being   
   enforced.   
           Next, you'll say that this force is a loss of freedom and unacceptable.   
           But as long as there is more than one person on the planet, there will   
   be others to deal with and the problem will not go away by   
   simply "doing away with government."  The people will still be there   
   and interaction problems will still exist and require a response.  If   
   there is a government, then at least a mechanism will exist for dealing   
   with the problems.  If you throw away the government, then people will   
   deal with their problems in, shall we say, "unstructured" ways.  That   
   results in all manner of violence and even deaths.  Not what I would   
   call "freedom."   
           Government is there for a purpose.  If it is not working it needs to be   
   fixed, no question!  If a certain form is not working, then another   
   form needs to be tried.  But to throw it out completely leaves us with   
   no way to do deal with the problems that will continue to exist anyway,   
   whether we keep it or not.  We will still have to deal with other   
   people and they will have to deal with us.   
           Now I believe in anarchistic process as much as anyone.  This means   
   that I don't like the idea of anyone being in charge of anybody else   
   and telling them what to do.  Yet doing away with government won't stop   
   that.  It would just make it easier for the strong to oppress the weak.   
   Most of us side with the underdog and it is the underdogs who get the   
   worst of the treatment under such conditions.  When those underdogs   
   learn to band together for their own protection, that's what we call   
   government, because we all get to be underdogs sooner or later and most   
   of us already are.   
      
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)