>These arguments look very similar to the rejection of institutional
>constraints that some anarchists have. I got the impression that you
>don't actually want an economic system, in the sense I think of it: a
>collection of people playing societal roles and forming institutions.
Its still an economic system Tayssir, whether or not you are prepared to concede it. There is no reason why people can't play different roles and organise in non coercive institutions.
>So it's no surprise that you find the whole thing irrational and unjust.
>
>Hahnel claimed that humans are social, in that we build social
>institutions and cooperate within them to take care of our needs and
>desires. (Certainly not just economic ones, but also for procreation,
>etc.) Of course, we're more than just our social selves; we're also
>self-creating and so on.
Only trouble is, your assertion that rejection of coercive economic systems and coercive social institutions amounts to rejection of all social institutions is rather silly. Your belief seems to be that no other kind of social organisation is possible. In fact, the way you talk it seems almost as if any other kind of social organisation is literally inconceivable to you.
This is a bleak and blinkered outlook indeed.
>So the question is, if we happen to like building social institutions,
>what do we want from them?
Well, speaking for myself, I want social institutions which serve people, rather than ones which people are servants of, or indentured to. Especially when we are talking about economic organisations. I recognise that it is a matter of opinion whether such a system is desirable, but it is difficult to have that debate with people who refuse to acknowledge that non-coercive social systems are even conceivable.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas