Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology Message-ID: <855@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Wed, 27-Mar-85 03:27:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.855 Posted: Wed Mar 27 03:27:45 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Mar-85 02:45:00 EST References: <1467@dciem.UUCP> <1477@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 60 Summary: In article <1477@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >"Parody mode" is the easiest way of avoiding an argument, isn't it? No, "parody mode" is an easy way to show that an argument consists of empty hand-waving that makes equal sense no matter what words you plug into it. >You miss the point entirely. It is true only in a very restricted >sense that "the people and their interactions constitute the sum >total of society." JoSH made a very good analogy with a radio. Sure, >it consists only of its transistors, resistors, etc. and their >interconnections, but it is a radio, not a collection of parts, >simply because the connections have a specific organization that works >as a radio. That analogy is broken for many reasons (see below), but to push it even farther, the parts of the radio don't have to make any effort beyond doing their job. The mere fact that they work, and remain in contact with other components, is enough to maintain the radio as a radio. Or (from yet more of my unquoted text) my being part of society, and interacting with it pays my debt to society in full. Now, on why that analogy is broken from the word go. First, a radio was constructed by an intelligent being. Society wasn't, and if you want to argue about that one, do it in net.religion. The radio has a purpose, over and above being a collection of parts. Society is a collection of people, each with their own purpose. The parts of a radio cannot change their role in the radio, whereas people can change their role in society. Nuts - if a single component in a radio dies, the radio looses quality, and probably stops being a radio. If a person dies, society just keeps rolling along. Want more? >I reiterate: [Libertarians] makes the common mistake of confusing the >benefits received from society with the benefits received from >people in the society. I'll reiterate too: [Socialists] make the common mistake of confusing a collection of people and their interactions with an entity that takes on a will of its own. >Similarly, it is the *organization* of society that determines how you >live, not the simple fact that there are interacting people. Aha! Something that I can't use parody mode on. I'll even agree, to an extent. In a totalitarian society (or a radio :-), the organization does indeed determine how you live. In a free society, the organization excludes some manners of living, by excluding certain classes of interaction. Other than that, you determine how live - including the creation of totally new ways of living. >As to the proper recipient of the cheque (unquoted part of the article) >anyone duly authorized to collect it on behalf of society will do. All >organization needs external support, and money is one way to provide it. Ok, how do I recognize a "duly authorized" person? Since you admit that the government (another collection of individuals that people like to give a life of it's own) is not isomorphic to society, government authorization isn't sufficient.