[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is Debian an anarchist organization/project?


On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 08:41:36AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:22, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> > That all humans have an equal and legitimate right to defend their lives
> > and their share of the human inheritance. No person or body of persons
> > shall maintain a monopoly on such right to legitimate use of force.
> > Bodies maintaining such monopolies today are called "governments".
> The problem is that an individual or a small group of people can't oppose the 
> use of force that a government can provide.  If a group of people have a 
> country then they need to defend it from other countries who would desire 
> mineral resources, agricultural land, etc.  Disorganized people can't stand 
> against a modern army.  Therefore every country needs an army.

This is getting rapidly off-topic, but that is also a good counter-
argument against the anarchistic notion that 'the people interested
enough in wellfare will pay for it'. 

You see, some people will only play along if they know everybody else
has to as well. So a majority to spend money on something might only
form if people know in advance that they can force everyone else to
spend that money too. 

Of course, that's how democracy works, and in theory it can work quite
well, if the freedom of the individual is protected from that all mighty
government of that 51 % majority, from his fellow individuals and, not
unimportantly, protected from the private organizations run by them.

It's too bad that the framers of the US constitution thought the
government more dangerous to the liberty of its citizens than anything
else and therefore hardly protects against the enormous private
concentrations of power you see today. Given the foresight, the framers
would have no doubt forbidden all use of private resources for political
campaigns, whether they come from the rich candidate himself or campaign

> > from fear of theft, murder, oppression, starvation, and homelessness.
> > And by abolishing government and private property, we can all enjoy the
> > unlimited wealth that this physical universe and our fertile human
> > imaginations provide as an inheritance.
> That might work for a non-technological society.  It doesn't scale to chip 
> fabs capable of producing 50 million transistor CPUs that run at 3GHz, and 
> other similar technological production.
> Being into technology we all depend on things that are not possible without 
> corporations.  Therefore we can't oppose private property and companies.

I doubt that. If a public society can build highways that costs millions
of euros per kilometer, then why can it not build chip fabs?

Or do you think the AMD vs. Intel competition is really needed to spark
the creativity of their engineers? I think human competition is needed,
but it need not necessarily be among corporations that are in it for the
money. You can see the same beneficial effect in two publicly funded
rivalling R&D groups I guess. Lots of people will do that extra bit for
fame and and public recognition as well as for money.



E-Advies / Emile van Bergen   |   emile@e-advies.info
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153        |   http://www.e-advies.info

Attachment: pgpOFZDS13uJg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: