Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory,net.legal
Subject: Re: JoSH's "Statism"
Message-ID: <3593@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 20:27:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3593
Posted: Mon Sep  9 20:27:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 08:34:05 EDT
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.politics.theory:1061 net.legal:2306

In article <321@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
>In article <3476@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>>What I want in the absence of a political system is, simply,
>>the absence of any political system.
>
>That last sentence CERTAINLY should go into net.politics.slogans .  JoSH,
>the absence of something does not always imply the presence of something
>else.  At least not to me.  Does a state of human nature such that no
>political system is present exist?  Define your terms, please.

Offhand and witless insults like this add nothing to a discussion.
My sentence above was a direct reply to a question given in exactly
the terms of the question.  Ie. "What do you want in the absence of
a political system?"  The question assumes that the absence of a 
political system is possible.

>>I believe [it's] impossible to show that people in general derive more
>>benefit from political systems than detriment.
>
>Term problem again:  what is "people in general"?  I don't understand
>that it isn't just another slogan.

cf the Constitution of the US, "We the people", "the common defense",
"the general welfare", "ourselves and our posterity".  It *is* just a
slogan, but it is a slogan of the statist status quo.

>>...  A political system
>>in a society is, simply put, a positive feedback phenomenon, and 
>>will increase until the society begins to break down under its
>>depredations.
>
>Slippery slope madness, this.  To use power to maintain the status
>quo does not mean to maintain the status quo, or to increase the
>amount of control.

"To use eggs to make omelets does not mean to make omelets, or to 
have breakfast."

>>To understand what a society without a government would actually
>>be like, it helps to notice that the guys sitting in the legislature
>>do not actually do anything but talk.  All the actual services,
>>police, firemen, social workers, adjudicators, garbagemen in many
>>places, and so forth, are merely hired help.  The legislature is
>>only a decision-making mechanism which decides how many of who will
>>be hired to do what.  The market forms an equally effective, and
>>considerably more fair, decision-making mechanism for society.
>
>"only", "equally effective", "considerably more fair":  all these
>opinions are supposed to be obvious to the rest of us?  
>Tony Wuersch

Does Tony think

(a) Something I say must be obvious to be correct, or
(b) No unobvious views should be allowed on the net, or
(c) Anything not obvious "to the rest of us" will be wasted 
    on "the rest of us"?

Apparently Tony would like the general who burned the Library at
Alexandria:  anything which is not obvious to him is heretical--
and that which is, is of course superfluous.

--JoSH