700
>
>At 1:49 PM +0000 1/7/02, Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >So what is it that people decide democartically when they get together?
>That machines should do thus and so? Machines,a las, won't do anything just
>because you tell them. But if the people direct, democratically, that
>people should use machines thus and so, they are directing people how to
>live their lives at least in that respect.
>
>No, they would be deciding how the machines should be used. No-one would be
>obliged to use the machines thus and so, they would be free to go on a
>picnic instead. I thought I made that part clear? No economic or political
>conscription of labour.
I see. So these democratic decisions would be unenforceable. Just sorta suggestions. Except for the part (below) where we cut off power and resources to the peiople we don't like. But that's not coercion. Coercion would be bad.
>
> >Well, you don't want to cops to have guns, then? I don't have strong
>feelings about this, It strikes me as the sort of Owenite micromanagement
>of the future that helped maked Marx allergic to utopian socialism.
>
>I'd prefer cops not to carry guns in the present. It has always struck me
>as a bit dangerous for those young fellows to be strutting around with
>loaded guns, in situations where a gun is not likely to be needed.
Like the South West side of Chicago . . . . ? But then there the Brit cops, who don't carry guns, and who do just fine with maintaininga tolerable level of police brutality.
>I'd prefer there be no cops in the future, but that isn't micro-management,
>it is strategic.
Well, obviously, if democratic decisions are uneforceable, then you won't
require an enforcement agency. Sociopaths and the criminally incdrrigible
will have a field day, but I guess that's OK. A few serial killers on the
loose will be a small price to pay for freedom from coercion.
>
>I explained the mechanism. The decision could be enforced (or not) by a
>boycott of those folks diverting socially-owned resources. They won't get
>far if the electricity and supplies are with-held. No need for guns and
>sheriffs.
But the boycott is also unenforceable. And boycots (like all collective action) is hard to maintain without a structure of, uh, coercion to make it go. Suppose the Rabdroids, frustrated by being denied electricity and supplies, take them at gunpoint, if they cannot bribe or sweet-talk enough people into braeking the boycott? ANd what makes you think a boycott isn't coercive?
> >
> >Well, maybe. But suppose someone decided to privately appropriate
>property?
>
>Stealing would be an odd sort of crime in a society where nearly everything
>is available for free, don't you think? I don't say it would never happen,
>but you'd want to call a head-shrinker, not than a sheriff.
>
But you couldn't make them see the head-shrinker, right? That would be coercion? And I wasn't talking about stealing. There is no law, so no property, so no theft, remember? Would you prohibit capitalsit acts among consenting adults? Of course not! How could you. You think these acts would be rare? Why so? A society where everying is avialbale for free would be very poor. The ambitious and those desiring more would tend to set up capitalist-style enterprises, appropriating some of thi sfree property for their own use, defending it with guns with private police forces, and hiring those who are discontented with little. Or perhaps using their guns to gety forced labor.
> >>I believe it is important to avoid creating such political power if the
>aim is a truly free society. There risks of totalitarian power outweigh the
>supposed benefits.
> >
> >Uh, who's talking about totalitaian powerr? I advocate democratic power.
>
>The two things aren't incompatible. Otherwise you wouldn't need a bill of
>rights.
>
The tyranny of the majority is a problem, but as Mill and Tocqueville point out, it doesn't require state power. You haven't avoided it. And misuse of democratic power isn't, by definition, totalitarian.
>
> >>Though obviously there would be nothing to prevent local communities or
>other groups from organising however they saw necessary. But they would
>have no way of using economic coercion to build a power structure, only
>free association.
Just boycotts . . .
> >
> >Yeah, right. So the Randroids set up a little capitalist community. You
>don't use the economic coercion of a boycott to destroy their experiment.
>You don't have cops to shut them down. What do you do?
>
>Think about it. In this society goods and services are free. The Randroids
>little capitalist enterprise will have to come up with one hell of an angle
>to compete in that kind of market environment!
As I said, I believe that your society would be extremely poor. The angle is: this isn't working. Do it our way and we can be richer. ANd they'll be right.
>
>A market economy cannot survive surrounded by a genuinely socialist
>economy, any more than a non-market economy can exist within a
>predominately market economy.
Market economies are extradordinarily dynamic. We have yet to see a dynamic nonmarket socialist economy.
>
> >>BTW, have you got an answer to me legal question about whether private
>prosecutions of criminal offenses is permitted in the US?
> >>
> >
> >Yes I have an answer. It is abolutely not permitted in the US, or any
>other modern society as far as I know. I actually had to cite this
>principle in a case I drafted recently.
>
>It is permitted here and Australia is a much more modern society than the
>US.
What do you know!
After all, you people still cling to first-past-the-post voting and imperial
weights and measures! ;-)
>
>I assumed it was an old English common law tradition, but don't really
>know.
It is, but it's a very old onem long superseded in the US, if indeed it was ever allowed here. Also in England, I am pretty sure. Likewise, I don't think it has any place in a civil law system.
>Anythow, it looks like you don't have that option to keep law enforcement
>agencies honest unfortunately. It was just something I was curious about.
>
>
No, we don't. There are civil actions possible agsinst the government, but in the last decade the Supreme Court has been shrinking the sphere of these under the name of the sovereign immunity.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx