4d184a1b   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: k8mn@frontiernet.net   
      
   David Friedman wrote:   
   > In article <_1wjk.14949$cg.3405@fe085.usenetserver.com>,   
   >  Dave Heil  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Brian M. Scott wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:15:35 +0000, Dave Heil   
   >>>  wrote in   
   >>>  in   
   >>> rec.arts.sf.misc,alt.politics:   
   >>>   
   >>> [...]   
   >>>   
   >>>> I think that maximum personal freedom is not an option.   
   >>> You're right: it's not.  That's why you don't have it.   
   >> I have it.  It is guaranteed me by the Constitution.  My freedom doesn't   
   >> allow me to infringe on the freedoms of others nor can I endanger others.   
   >   
   > What makes you think that that's the maximum? Couldn't you imagine   
   > changes in the Constitution, or how it gets applied, that would increase   
   > your freedom--perhaps even without reducing other people's? I certainly   
   > can.   
   >   
   >> I don't have total freedom.  That would mean anarchy.   
   >   
   > I can't make much sense of that claim. Let me suggest two possible   
   > interpretations:   
   >   
   > 1. What you mean by anarchy is a society where there are no   
   > institutional constraints on what anyone can do. But in such a society I   
   > don't have total freedom, since what I can do is constrained by all of   
   > those other unconstrained people. I might, for instance, not have the   
   > freedom to express unpopular views without being murdered.   
   >   
   > 2. What you mean by anarchy is what I mean by it--a society without a   
   > government (problems of defining "government" left for further   
   > discussion). In such a society there will be other mechanisms by which   
   > individuals attempt to protect their rights. Those mechanisms might work   
   > better than governmental ones, leading to more freedom, they might work   
   > worse, leading to less, they might turn out better than some governments   
   > and worse than others.   
      
   Anarchy denotes confusion and disorder.   Definition #1 comes the   
   closest to this and it is to that which I referred.   
      
   I cant's see #2 working at all.  "Other mechanisms" aren't defined, but   
   they sounds very much like government.   
      
   Dave Heil   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)