Re: proposal defense meeting 12-1

Liberty (
Mon, 01 Dec 1997 02:36:46 -0500

Dear Don,

At 07:45 PM 30/11/97 -0800, Donald Bokor wrote:

>Let me warn you that I am not trying to flame you, I am just taking
>offense to your social libertarian (or anarcho capitalist) perspective.

I have a right to this perspective.

>You may be a very nice person, although some of your posts wouldn't make 
>me think so.  But that is not the issue, rather it is how we going to 
>ensure that our efforts in this mailing list are not going to be just 
>words on the screen.

I have a right to challenge the socialist, left-wing or anarcho-communist
perspective as well, if I find statements made to be contrary to what
I see to be workable or pragmatic solutions.

>Gwen is obviously correct, unless of course, you have actually sent Tom
>the funds that he was requesting from the profit you are making in your
>glorious capitalistic enterprise.  Well, are you?  Good, then don't tell
>him that he doesn't deserve or shouldn't get that funding.

I said if the venture was privately funded, that is okay.  I just do not
see any point in government funding for Internet lists.

>It's probably true that what he does for this list is more socially 
>valuable than what you do for your "profit," and he probably is asking 
>for less money than you earn off your business.

How do YOU know what I do is not as socially valuable?  I create jobs for
people.  Through my work with other businesses, I help preserve and create
even more jobs for people.  Without people working, a society has a very
sad, depressing, gloomy future.  Without people working, nobody will have
the kind of money that is needed to give to government in taxes or to
donate to private foundations, such as the foundation that may provide
support to Tom's list.
>As if your government, or any government for that matter, hasn't already
>bankrupted their respective nations.  Unless governments are composed of
>all of the people for the purpose of satisfying all of the needs of all of
>the people, then they will of necessity bankrupt the people in advancing
>their own ideas of "national interests." 

So, I guess if we ask every single man, woman and child to vote on every 
single question facing this nation as it occurs every day, we will probably
never see anything get done, will we?  Representative democracy is essential 
to leave the task of governing to representatives that we elect.  After the
term of office is over, and we are not happy with the work the
representatives did, we should band together and quite handily vote them
out of office.

>The only times that "governments" have been symbiotic with their
>is when individuals mutually agreed to self-govern, and not these bullshit

What exactly are your proposed mechanics for self-government?  Just let
everybody do what they want, despite how it affects other people?  No laws?  
No regulations?  Or do you mean something quite different?  Explain.

>AmeriKKKan lies of self-governing through "representative" democracy or of
>"invisible-hand" governance of free market economics.   

Free market is imperfect, but far more effective than its alternatives.

>IMHO, there are greater priorities than building governments or 
>economies, such as peace, love, freedom, and zero tolerance for hunger, 
>pain, and homelessness.  Nobody has a right to any money if everybody is 
>not fed and housed.

Are you saying that if we stopped everybody from making money, we will 
have all the money in the world to help stop hunger, homelessness, etc.  
Now, tell me how this is operationalized in a day-to-day sense.  How will 
you get the rest of the world to agree to stop making or relying on money?

Are you suggesting we all take up bartering or something?  How do you 
propose to get all five or six billion people on this earth to agree to 
such a system?  Who would run it and how would we ensure that every man, 
woman and child has enough to eat, a place to live and so forth, under 
the new system?