Or to put it another way, this is a disagreement about how humans may organize themselves in the absence of authoritarian control.
I tend to think that neither way has much chance of coming into being, because the vast majority of people would need to agree and be united behind one non-authoritarian way of doing things. Otherwise authoritarian tendencies will creep in, in order that the chosen system of organising be imposed on those who believe in the other. So maybe thats why it then becomes tempting to believe that our personal preference for how humans & the economy organise, is the 'natural way', or 'human nature', and so it would spontaneously happen if only those cursed forces of authoritarian communism, socialism, fascism or capitalism would cease. One man may dream of worker-owned co-operatives, another of free market heaven, but both will remain dreams and the moment someone tries to make them real, the old horrors of authoritarianism are unleashed. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So yeah I tend to believe this is a bit of an argument over the claim > to be the ideological opposite, and attractive solution to, the > problems of big government and authoritarianism. What sets us apart is > economic beliefs. We are unlikely to see eye to eye because I think > the Austrian school and free market stuff is unworkable and wrong, > whereas you possibly think all alternatives are authoritarian and > socialist or communist. In this sense we hardly believe eachothers > positions really exist at all. One thing is for sure, candidates > supporting either of these stances are not usually available in > elections or acknowledged as existing in the media. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows >
