Re: proposal defense meeting 12-1

Donald Bokor (
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:05:48 -0800 (PST)

Dear Liberty,

In some ways I am ready to quit this debate but in some ways I am too
stubborn.  More importantly, I think that there are still some valuable
lessons to be learned, maybe not by you or me since we already know it
all, by the group about ideas on the causes of and solutions to
homelessness.  Now, let me state from the outset, that I will never be
satisfied calling any system for dealing with homelessness as effective
unless there are no longer ANY homeless people.  And I will never call
these systems efficient if they do it at a cost that is higher than if the
homeless solved their own problems.  Here we go.

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Liberty wrote:

> 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.

And I have the obligation to dispell any lies or ignorances of that
perspective.  Truth is my moral imperative, not personal preference for a
comfortable lifestyle.

> >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.

You sure are worried about your rights, aren't you?  And are you also
willing to engage in murder if that is the only workable or pragmatic
solution to maintaining your perspective?  Now this my sound like a flame,
but I am justified in it because historically violence has been the
preferred alternative for the ignorant to maintain their perspective.
Truth does not give a damn about workable or pragmatic solutions.  The
role of humanity is to discover and realize truth despite how unworkable
or unpragmatic it seemed to the ignorant people's of the times.

> <snip>
> >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.

But you didn't say if you were willing to fund it?  I agree with you that
the government shouldn't fund internet lists, but not for the same reason
as you do.  I think the government should not fund the police, prisons,
nor military either.  In fact, I think that the government, as we know it,
should be abolished altogether and post hast at that. 

> >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 said PROBABLY; I didn't say I knew.  But why I said what I did is
because he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart and for the love
of his fellow humans, while you are doing it for money.  You wouldn't give
a rat's ass about creating people jobs if it didn't make you a profit.  If
you didn't think that you would be getting more out of your efforts to
create the jobs than you put into the effort of creating the jobs, you
wouldn't be self employed.  YOU, at least as you are presenting yourself
now in this list, are doing your creation of social value for purely
selfish reasons which in fact detract from the value of society.  It's
like saying I'm going to bring the niggers here from Africa so that they
can have the opportunity to build the great economic wealth of this
nation.  Why do you think I call it AmeriKKKa, and why do you think I call
your efforts to create jobs an effort to create slavery?  People come
before economic and political systems.  You cannot economically and
politically destroy people's lives so that they must then turn to your
system and ask for salvation, and still call yourself moral or consider
yourself as creating social value. So you follow my lead and get rid of
your greed and do what you do for love and not for money , and then I
MIGHT consider what you do as socially valuable.

> I create jobs for
> people.  Through my work with other businesses, I help preserve and create
> even more jobs for people.  

You don't create or preseve shit.  You didn't create the technology.  You
didn't create the knowledge.  There is only one creator.  You capitalized
on the fact that the creator shared with you some knowledge and wasn't
here to capitalize on that knowledge Himself.  So you are stealing that
creation from Him, so that you can make yourself a profit.  As I said, I
am not saying you are a bad person, just that the evil of capitalism and
government is that it makes people want to keep for themselves what God
has given to all of us freely and equally.  I too am a management
consultant, but this gift of knowledge that God gave me is not something
I'm only going to share with or offer to those who can afford it.  Rather,
I am going to share this knowledge with all of my brothers and sisters so
that they can learn how to manage their own lives and not be dependent on
governments or employers to manage their lives for them.  Of course, you
would say that that would be putting yourself out of business.  You're
right.  But I'm offering you to join the family of humans, instead of
raping them for their material wealth.

> Without people working, a society has a very
> sad, depressing, gloomy future. 

>From everything that I understood about the native american cultures these
people's futures were not looked at as "sad, depressing, and gloomy."  At
least, not until we brought them our ideas of work.  

> 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.

Now what if I sent Tom free food from my cooperative farm, and had workers
from my voluteer community service project build him a shelter?  Well, he
wouldn't need the money, that you seem to be so dependent on, for the
sustaining of his life so he could continue the list.  Furthermore, if
Tom decides not to do the list because he has to do it for free, I am sure
that I or others like me will pick up the ball where he dropped it.  But,
as I see it you are still criticizing his need to get government funding
when you could solve that problem right now by providing him the funds,
and sure go ahead and create an accounting structure to make sure that he
doesn't spend his $500 a month in some way that is wrong.

> >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? 

Wrong answer.  This whole idea of a nation is a myth.  Nationalism is
probably one of the most horrendous experiments in social organization
that humanity has ever perpetrated on itself.  We are HUMANS.  EARTH is
our HOME.  Nobody has any rights to restrict anybody from going into any
room of that home that they so choose.  The only way that anybody has ever
been able to enforce such rights is through the use of force and violence.
We murdered the indians and then gave the europeans the "right" to use
that land in anyway they saw fit (clearcutting, open pit mining, water and
air pollution, etc) for economic growth.

How absurd your ideology works out when you examine it.  Humanity didn't
need to have voting for languages to be invented or fire to be discovered
or for all the technological advancements that occurred for the thousands
of years that humans never even considered the idea of voting, but
obviously much got done.  So to think that nothing will ever get done if
your idea of social organization isn't maintained is to be patently
absurd, narrow-minded, and down right dangerous.  This is the hallmark of
ignorance, and this is the hallmark the "most enlightened and progressive"
countries in the world.  You know, Hitler's Germany was also the most
enlightened at the time.  It'd be funny, if it weren't so sad the millions
upon millions of lives that were lost, and are still being written off
because "the people" don't know what's better for themselves than the
enlightened countries do.

We will get much done without your fucking representative democracy.  Much
more than we can ever imagine now.  And yes, not only should every man,
woman, and child have a say in what is done to their body and soul, but
they should have the final say.

> 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.

After the term of office is over may be too late to get rid of the son of
a bitch.  One of these days one of those representatives is going to
convince a majority (even though it will be an artificial majority, or
actually a minority masquerading as a majority) of the population that the
only way to solve our problems is through limited nuclear warfare, and
then it will be TOO LATE.  I'll bet that when you're dying of radiation
poisoning, you'll be thanking your representative for faithfully
performing his elected task.

> >The only times that "governments" have been symbiotic with their
> environments 
> >is when individuals mutually agreed to self-govern, and not these bullshit
> What exactly are your proposed mechanics for self-government? 

My proposed mechanics?  Do I sound like God?  I'm not going to tell you
how to govern your own actions.  If you are not mature enough to do that
yourself, then I'm sorry about your problem.  But as far as I'm concerned,
I educate myself about how my actions affect others and then govern my
actions so that they will not hurt any others, directly or indirectly.
The "golden rule" might be one mechanic to consider.  I'm sure there are
others we could figure out, but I suppose you wouldn't want to help us
figure any of them out because you wouldn't make a profit from your
efforts at helping.

> Just let
> everybody do what they want, despite how it affects other people? 

How about just let everybody serve everybody else in the manner that they
best know how and are able to perform?  Your right to act stops where it
intersects my right to live and survive in a humane fashion.

> No laws?  
> No regulations?  

What laws and regulations did God put in your soul when you were
conceived?  Love.  Love all.  Love equally.  Love unconditionally.  Live
by that and we can burn all the rules and codebooks in the world.

> Or do you mean something quite different?  Explain.

Figure it out for yourself.  Explain it to me.  Go into that deep part
within yourself that you have sealed off, and ask for the answers.
"Please tell me how I am going to feed myself and house myself without
oppressing anybody else in the process?"
> >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.

Effective at what?  The only thing that the free market is effective at is
concentrating wealth in the hands of a very powerful minority.  Humanity
suffers when wealth is concentrated.  So the free market is also effective
at making humanity suffer.  What we need is to manage the resources we
have available on the earth so that wealth is distributed at least enough
to give every person a meaningful existence, and probably so that everyone
has a proportionately equal share of that wealth.  That's a goal that I
would be proud to participate in effectively achieving.

> >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.  

No, we will not have money at all.  Money is simple a tool to measure
material accumulation, kind of like a yardstick is a tool to measure
distance covered.  What we will NO LONGER have is a system which says if
you don't have money you will starve or freeze to death.  

> 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?

What did Wilbur and Orville say when people asked them how they were going
to make a human fly?  They said, "I don't know but I'm going to figure it
out."  Let's do the same, instead of saying it is too big of a task to
even consider.  Again, I will repeat myself from earlier posts.  The
moneyless people of the world have their time and energy to devote to
helping themselves and others out of the bind we are in.  If we help these
people to organize so that they can provide themselves with free food and
shelter, then the marginally moneyed people will say that looks like a
better deal than getting a job at McDs and they will volunteer their time
and energy also.  At some point a balance will be achieved where the money
whores can actually provide a better environment than this voluntary
cooperative society and the free flow of individuals across the boundary
between these two systems will stop and an equilibrium will be maintained.
This is simple economics.  Not economics in the sense of who's got the
money, but economics in the sense that all of the material resources are
efficiently and effectively being used.  Human lives aren't being
squandered because they don't represent money value.

> Are you suggesting we all take up bartering or something? 

No.  I am not talking about any system that expects some supposed "fair"
exchange, but rather I am talking about people doing what they can and
must do to help everybody that they can and are able to.  It's like a
family, when a child gets sick do the parents let the child die because
the return on investment doesn't exceed the cost of saving the child's
life?  Hell no.  (But if you are too poor for medical care then the child
dies anyway.)  We are all brothers and sisters of everyone else.  The
human race is one big family, and it's time we started treating everybody
as full family members.

> How do you 
> propose to get all five or six billion people on this earth to agree to 
> such a system?

By slowly building a system which provides a better standard of living to
everybody in the system than all competing systems.  I believe that we are
doing that here by offerring to help the poor to manage themselves and
their resources (their time and energy) to provide themselves a better
life than what the current political and economic systems offer.  As we
develop the best, most free, most loving community on earth then people
will freely join us if they so choose.  Bu tbasically I don't propose to
get all six billion people on earth to join, unless they do so of their
own volition.  No more coercion.  ZERO TOLERANCE for FORCE.

> 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?

We all would run it by each of us doing our part and not relying on some
representative to do it for us.  I believe that huamnity already has the
technology to grow more food and build more shelter than is needed by
every man, woman and child.   Maybe you ought to read a book by Murray
Bookchin called Post-Scarcity Anarchism.  It might open your eyes to some
of the most obvioously lies that you hold so dearly.  Get back now,
because it's time to butcher your sacred cow.
> Respectfully,
> Liberty
> -

Donald W. Bokor