Hi, On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:07:54AM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:45:33AM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote: > >>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'. > > Not really. Under anarchism, the means of production would be in the > hands of the people. So if they didn't have food to eat it would most > likely be their own fault for not working, in which case let them > starve. Ah, yes, the ethics of the jungle. I'm personally not in favour of that. > If each person has the weaponry to take out 10 other people, people will > be pretty polite to each other. Again, that's just the right of the strongest. Everybody defends himself with his own weapons. I don't think that builds a good society. > No. Quotes from the framers demonstrate that they purposely didn't want > the government to protect against private concentrations of power; you > see, the framers were quite wealthy men in their own right. By their > own words, they wanted the government to "defend property". They were > scared that the poor dirt farmers who couldn't get enough credit to be a > few more hogs and cattle to get their farm really booming were jealous > of the huge landowners who were working their lands with slaves. So tell me then, how would an anarchist society defend itself against a few hundred people teaming up to excercise power over their neighbors, with their weapons that each can take out ten people each, as you say? I think you'd have one continuous civil war over the resources that /are/ scarce. Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpeGocsSOfxP.pgp
Description: PGP signature