Gordon:
> >I understand the theory that coercion is more efficient than
> >freedom, but you haven't answered the objections I make to
> >that theory (right above). The fact that a large majority
> >do not agree with me is hardly an argument at all and I
> >don't know why you've introduced it.
> >
Justin Schwartz:
> In a democrcatic context, the fact taht an absolutely overwhelming number
> of people, all but a statistically insignificant minority, would prefer the
> ourported loss of freedom involvedin having a democratic state to the
> sacrifice of all public goods that that state alone can provide--something
> you don't dispute--is a conclusive refutation of the idea that the costs in
> terms of freedom outweightthe benefits in terms of welfare. Sorry, Cholly.
> You can't impose barbarism and poverty on humanity in the name--so
> called--of freedom.
Nothing is going to be imposed by anarchists; unlike democracy, so-called, anarchy can't be imposed. If people don't want freedom, they won't get it. Anarchist politics at most makes the possibility of freedom visible. After that people have to choose it.
By the way, I did not sign on to your, or anyone else's, Hobbesian view that the State is the only alternative to barbarism and poverty. It may be, but that has not been proved. And if it is, humanity is doomed anyway, so we might as well pretend otherwise.
-- Gordon