Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : DC Sniper - Theories? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (2615)	10/28/2002 3:22:29 PM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2746

LPS5, Somehow I doubt that Gustave would approve of your meaning of 'anarchy'. When Gustave talks about "Anarchy" he is referring to the philosophical theory that ALL governments are coercive and should be abolished and replaced with 'voluntary cooperation'. To Gustave 'anarchy' and 'chaos' are two very different things. Here in the States, many of us assume anarchy and chaos to be synonomous. It's never been quite clear to me exactly how an Anarchic government would work. I suppose even the enforcement of traffic laws could be deemed coercive by a radical anarchist. Unfortunately, their is no model to learn from. No Anarchic government has ever existed. Curiously, here in the states, we do have a homegrown version of the anarchic movement. They are called 'radical libertarians' and are actually associated with right wing politics. Many Republicans and libertarians have deep-seated suspicions concerning the power of a central government. Radical libertarians take this suspicion to the radical max and concludes that government itself, aside perhaps from enforcing traffic laws, should have virtually no power to tax or regulate. Thus, if someone in our society wants protection from fire or crime, they would simply hire a local enterprise to provide that protection. It wouldn't be government's responsibility or obligation to provide fire or law enforcement protection. Why? Well, a radical libertarian might ask, "why should I pay taxes just because my neighbor is careless and set his on house on fire? It should be my choice to decide whether or not I need fire protection and I shouldn't be coerced into paying taxes" Public schooling wouldn't exist either. You would have to pay a private association to teach your kids. Don't ask me what would happen to parents who refuse to school their children or how new roads and bridges would be constructed nor who or what would provide regulation for environmental issues. Like anarchism I haven't figured this one out either. There are people who seriously espouse this kind of nonsense. They conveniently forget that if their neighbor's house catches fire and the same neighbor has refused to pay for fire coverage that his fire jeopardizes everyone who lives in the neighborhood. As I see it, the only advantage of radical libertarianism over Anarchy would be the saving grace of having no demolition derbys on our streets...if there are streets. Of course, the ultimate hypocrisy here is Gustave's. On the one hand, he is opposed to coercion in any form, but on the other hand, he seems to support Saddam Hussein's despotic 'right' to subjugate his people with fear and terror. Again, I can't explain. Maybe Gustave will help us out here.