e99da19d   
   XPost: alt.politics   
   From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article <9DQlk.8728$bO1.4024@fe105.usenetserver.com>,   
    Dave Heil  wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That's one meaning, but not the one generally used when discussing   
   political ideologies. Another meaning is a society with order but   
   without government (not an exact quote--I'm in a car driving across Iowa   
   towards Denver with a slow internet connection, and my dictionaries are   
   a long distance away).   
      
   >  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.   
      
   Any mechanism for protecting rights is government?   
      
   Governments do lots of things other than protecting rights, including   
   violating rights on a massive scale--a much larger scale than private   
   criinals. Of course, you could argue that without governments private   
   criminals would commit much more crime.   
      
   And people protect their rights in lots of ways other than via   
   government. If you lock your door, does that make you a government? Is   
   Brinks a government? The American Arbitration Association?   
      
   There are plenty of stateless societies in the anthropological record.   
   What we don't have are examples of modern, developed, stateless   
   societies.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)