I think where we differ is that I'm extremely pessimististic about human nature. It's not that I don't like the idealistic picture, I just don't see that it can work out that way. Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > > The idealism that I refer to is the concept that human beings can create > > something substantially better than what exists. > > You mean like human beings have been doing for 10,000 years? Even in my > mere 54 years I have seen amazing advances. I expect to see many many more > before I'm through. > Advances of what sort? In the way we treat each other? In that part of human nature that seeks dominance over others? In that part of human nature that resorts to violence when negotiation fails to satisfy? I think there are some fundamental behaviors that have not changed and will not change. Entertaining as it is, beneficial as it can be, Technology != advance, Technology == change. > Belief in progress has been the hallmark of human endeavor ever since at > least the Industrial Revolution. Where's your historical perspective. My > guess is that you are not very old, is that correct? > I suppose that's part of a belief system that helps keep things going. The big picture doesn't seem to change a whole lot. > > > Profit seeking is not the sine qua non of literal anarchistic > > > systems--non-coercion is. > > > > > Now that's idealism - a human-powered machine that doesn't work by coercion. > > Yep, that's where I'd place my bet. > > You already do. 98% of what you do every day is based on non-coercive, > voluntary interactions. Excluding natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, > hurricanes, etc.), the remaining 2% (i.e., government/coercion) is > responsible for essentially all of the rest of humankind's miseries. Over > 120,000,000 deaths in the 20th century alone... > Coercive and non-coercive interactions have always been coexistent. I suspect you're missing some underlying conservation principles and incorrectly interpreting the existing situation at face value. > By it's nature coercion fights against freedom (e.g., when the subsidized post >office was still > unable to compete against Lysander Spooner, it didn't improve its efficiency, it >just got the > government to make it a coercive monopoly). > How do you distinguish the two states ( coercive, free ) unless they are both in evidence? I doubt they can even exist separately. > We'll win in the long run, but it's not a fair fight. > > S a n d y > Win what? You patch the floodwalls in Iowa and Missouri and the flood will be worse in Louisiana. That does not mean that you shouldn't try but the prognosis is not for anything but localized victories.
