[extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
> > No, we're talking about force.  Assuming people don't do things if
> > they're legal requires 100% effective enforcement - which not even
> > the
> > strictest, most draconian law enforcement agency in the world has
> > achieved over any large group of people.
> 
> Incorrect. People tend to not do illegal things if there is a
> significant risk of it costing them more than they will gain.

"Tend to not do" and "do not do" are two different things.  Some people
do pursue the illegal path - and some of those suceed, gaining enough
of an advantage to specialize and reduce their risk.  Corruption
happens when someone manages to reduce the risk to close enough to
zero, and starts teaching others how to beat the system.

> > Besides, history shows that if you try to screw over a body of
> people
> > long enough, hard enough, they will start tending to ignore any
> laws
> > you write for them.  They will, inevitably, initiate force - and if
> > your economy depends on exploiting their labor (as often happens in
> > these situations), you will fall (once whatever stockpiles you have
> > run out, without their production to renew said stockpiles), and
> > everyone involved will suffer. It's happened again and again, and
> > human nature has not changed in that regard.
> 
> Well, no, this isn't true. This shibboleth that 'violence never
> solves
> anything' is a fake philosophy. The US revolution certainly solved
> something, and a lot of people were better off for it. I could name
> many others, but you get the point. 

Actually, we're in agreement here.  My point is that violence will
eventually be resorted to as a solution, if non-violent solutions do
not work.

> And anyone who lets themselves get sucked into that deserves what
> they
> get.

I'm talking about situations where it's not a matter of choice.  You
need their product (to live, or just to be functional when practically
everybody else is using an equivalent), and those are the only terms
available.

> Everyone has a choice. Not everyone has the resolve and self
> discipline
> to see things through. If a company offers you and your lawyer a
> settlement on condition of non-disclosure, it is your choice to
> accept
> the settlement or not. Nobody is twisting your arm.

What if it's the only way to get food?  What if all the food
manufacturers require the same?  You don't have to purchase food from
them - except that you have to get your food somewhere, and not
everyone can grow their own food.