[ExI] The twists & turns of politics & idealism

Amon Zero amon at doctrinezero.com
Thu Oct 6 09:30:04 UTC 2011


On 5 October 2011 22:08, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> No time to follow all this discussion today, but I think people are missing
> that political power -- the kind politicians actually wield -- is far more
> dangerous and is at root the problem. The bankers power is derivative and
> relies on politicians and the government to enforce their position. In other
> words, were it not for the power of politicians and government, the bankers
> would be able to do very little damage. In fact, they would be reduced to
> the level of any other business that needed to cater to customer, attract
> investors, and worry about competitors.
> <snip>
> Put another way, it's as if we live under a absolute monarch and he hands
> out favors to certain bankers, businesspeople, clergy, professors, etc. and
> you're worried about arresting the latter, but would never ever contemplate
> questioning, much less arresting or overthrowing, the former. Don't you find
> that a bit strange?
>


Thanks for that Dan. Yes, I agree, this is indeed a perfectly valid point.
There is no clear line between the financial and other industries and
government. Which is of course rather the point.

And, as you say, any aspiring alternative to a particular order must be
careful not to become what it opposes, or indeed become something worse.

I personally do not believe that agreement with that point must
automatically lead to an endorsement of anarchism, or libertarianism,
however. I think it's safe to say that we can imagine anarchist or
libertarian societies which end up imposing systems just as problematic as
their predecessors, possibly even more so. I'm not saying that anarchism or
libertarianism are intrinsically flawed here (that would be another debate,
for another day), but that anarchism and libertarianism are not exempt from
the "this may all go horribly wrong" clause. No-one is.

For example, say an anarcho-capitalist solution to current governance were
somehow enacted (I'll sidestep the earlier issue of how exactly such a
transition might take place), and certain parties were to take advantage of
the new scheme to the systematic detriment of others. The "revolutionaries"
in this case wouldn't have formed a government, but they'd still be culpable
for the negative outcome.

- A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20111006/c7ee2e4e/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list