Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant), etc etc etc...

----- Original Message -----
From: <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca>
To: <gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant), etc etc etc...
> Well.
>
> One could go on about the fact that governments didn't spontaneously
> generate... they were created by people for good reason, and we
> (collectively, if not individually) choose to keep them there.

    Ah.. but I didn't create my governemnt.  And dispite my
participation in
the electorial process, I don't statistically have much of a say.

> One could say that by choosing to live in a state that has taxation,
you
> buy into that social contract.  If you don't like it, get out.

    Contract?  I don't remember signing any contract.

    Besides, saying "if you don't like it, get out" is a pretty
"maifiaesque" response.  I should have to put up with the laws of a
society,
no matter how wrong they are, or find somewhere else to live?

> One could say that the benefits of government are clearly demonstrated
by
> the fact that we don't live in caves, we have lightbulbs, etc.  The
> benefits of no-government are quite clearly demonstrated by certain
> portions of our world in recent history.  Say, mid-1990's Somalia.
> Mogadishu.  Rule of the gun.	Great place to live...

    The lightbulb wasn't invented by government, but a entrepenuer by
the
name of Thomas A. Edison for...dare I say it... PROFIT.  Indeed, much of
what we call "progress" is the result of "greedy" capitalists who sought
to
make money.

    As for anarchism...  I'd like to think that most rational people
neither
want to rule nor be ruled.  However, a sizable number of people on this
planet are not so driven.  For whatever reason (money, religion,
ideology,
or just the plain, naked, lust for power) people feel it necessary to
exert
power over their fellow man.  It's not so much a lack of government that
causing all the violence in Somalia or other...ahem... nations.  Rather,
it's the mad rush to fill in the power vaccum and be the first to start
their own idea of "government."  Your right, anarchy won't work in such
our
world, but I can't say that I'm all that hot for the alternative.

Things like the
> mythical "right to life" - does the poor bloke drowning in the middle
of
> the ocean have a "right to life?"  Phooey.  Rights are only "real" if
you
> have the ability to defend them and if other people collectively agree
that
> they exist.  And that comes from either a gun (or stick, or rock, or
> pitchfork, or whatever), or a governmental structure with laws of some
kind
> - a group of people all agreeing to buy into the same idea.  And the
latter
> is the only one that has been even vaguely fair throughout *all* of
> recorded history.  Rights don't exist in and of themselves.

    As realistically as you put it, I'm not sure I can 100% agree with
you.
To say that people only can claim a right as long as they have the power
to
back it up, is to say...oh... that a totalitirarian power has every
"right"
to opress a population.  Why not?  Rights don't really exist unless the
population has the strength to back them up. In other words:  Might
makes
right, yes?

    There has to be a point where an individual can put their foot down
and
tell the groups and governments of the world that they don't have the
power
to interfere with their lives, regardless of what kind of power they
wield,
on a moral basis.  You can call these moral claims "rights" if you want,
and
you can claim that they don't exist.  However, I can't really imagine
anything else that works.

> One could go on, and on, about all this and argue political and moral
> philosophy 'til the end of days, but when it comes right down to it,
this
> discussion is now becoming really, really silly.

    I'll admit that I was arguing ideals rather than practical reality. 
The
anarchocapitalist visions of L. Neil Smith and late-career Robert
Heinlein,
may make for great sci-fi, but that's unfortunately all they are.  I see
them as something to shoot for, but I realize that at this point in our
history I'm going to fall very short of the mark.  At best all I can
realistically hope for is government that can protect my "rights" and in
return only ask what it necessary for that protection.	Everything else
(e.g. food, clothing, shelter, health care, entertainment, etc.) I can
handle on my own.

    That's a pretty tall order.  Especially in a country where most of
it's
citizens are clamoring for the government to grant them some special
privilege or to regulate their neighbor's life in someway.  Of course,
our
two major political parties (not to mention most of the smaller ones)
are
more than willing to oblige.  As long as most American's see government
as a
suffocating, overprotective mother (i.e. the Democrats) or an abusive,
authoritarian, father-figure (i.e. the Republicans), we-- who are adults
without the need of "parents"-- will not be as free as weshould be.

    I guess I am an "anarchist" in the sense that I don't trust
government,
no matter how dictatorial or democrat it appears to be.  When I say
"don't
trust", that is I don't believe that government could or even should be
the
major decision maker of who an individual's conduct's their life.  I'd
like
to think that it's a healthy, rational mistrust, based upon an objective
(at
least I like to think it was objective ;-) ) observation of human
history
and my own personal experiences.  Of course, others will call me a
paranoid,
anti-government kook no matter how eloquently I put it.  However, since
when
do I care what other people think?

Later,
Mark A. Siefert

       "OK, so one woman exists; does that mean all women exist?"

     --Crow T. Robot
       MST3K,"Hobgoblins"

E-MAIL: siefertma@wi.rr.com   WWW: http://www.homegame.org/siefert