Arugmentation (Was: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.)

[Jeme A Brelin]

Please trim your quoted material to only the relevant comments.  You
quoted my entire message to post your few lines at the end.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, J.A. Henshaw wrote:
> I was referring to our private exchange, in which you say that a pair
> of pants would not be mine.

If you'll go back and look, I was explaining, in that private exchange,
that there is such a thing as a system without private property that does
not impinge upon personal freedom.  I was describing a hypothetical social
organization and did not say that I thought it was ideal.

> If this is not your dream, why do you constantly purvey it?

That constant purveyance is only in your head.

I DO believe that private power is accumulated through excessive wealth
and that accumulation of power is destructive to freedom.  But that's a
far cry from an abolition of private property.

> You repeat it over and over, and then say it is not your goal.  I AM
> confused, that is true- as far as what it is you are trying to say
> with your constant references to Marxism and then saying it isn't
> Marxist, etc. etc, and isn't your goal.
> 
> Why do you constantly speak of it?

You're referring to a whole pile of different things here.  Let me try to
explain:

We had a conversation in private about a hypothetical social order in
which private property did not exist.  This was an attempt by me to
explain to you that property does not convey freedom.  (It was my
understanding at the time that you were claiming that freedom is only
maintained through the respect of private property rights... now I don't
think your beliefs are so straightforward.)

Later, on this list, I attempted to explain Marx's theory of social
evolution through redistribution of power and wealth.  I didn't ever say
that I believed every word of it, only that I understood it well and could
correct all of the myriad misconceptions flying around this list about
socialism, communism, and, more generally, Marxism.

I seem to recall claiming that the Federal Reserve was not Marxist because
it aided the accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of the few and
that the soviets were not Marxist in action (despite rhetoric) for the
same reason.  That was all part of my attempt to correct the
misconceptions about Marxism that some people on this list stated as
though they were fact.

I don't think there's any inconsistency there.

Heck, if you folks were here spewing a bunch of unfounded and imaginary
crap about Freudian psychoanalysis, I would jump in and attempt to correct
those misconceptions and set the record straight.  That doesn't mean I
believe it's the best method for resolving personality disorders or even
that personality disorders require resolution.

Now, I'll go ahead here and state my opinion in some broad ways so you
guys that bitch can have something to which you can hold me later:

I find it useful to interpret a person's words and actions based on their
effects, rather than their intentions.

I believe there are two kinds of power:  The power that is inherent in a
free person to make decisions and enact them and the power of inequity to
manipulate the choices of a free person.  The power of inequity is wielded
by the haves against the have-nots.  The two motivators for a person are a
drive to establish equity and remove power (get the masters off of our
backs) and the drive to establish inequality and gain power (become a
master and climb up on the backs of others).  I have very clear ideas
about which is the healthier goal that leads to a more just, peaceful, and
free society.  In fact, I think the choice is obvious and every important
philosophy that held the other as a higher motive has lead to societies
that were war-like and oppressive.

In fact, I find that many people have such a poor concept of the former
motive that they perceive it only an effect of the latter.  That is to
say, they believe that the only way to become free is to establish
dominance over everyone else.  I think this view is narrow, juvenile, and
not very creative.  Yes, that is one way to become free, but the cost is
the enslavement of others.  I believe we can put in a touch more effort
and achieve freedom for AT LEAST a majority.

In essence, I see the modern Libertarian (as opposed to the classical
liberal) to view human interaction as a kind of no-holds-barred battle
royale.  The purpose is to keep rules to a minimum so that the strongest,
most ruthless and most agressive is assured victory.  The presuppositions
here are that a victor is required and the victory of the strongest, most
ruthless and most aggressive is most beneficial.  I see no reason to
presume either of those things.  Instead of working toward a world in
which most people end up smashed and bloodied under the foot of the
strongest, fastest, and most ruthless, we use regulation to tie the hands
of those that would smash and bloody others and we use democracy to keep
as many people intact and smiling as possible.  In other words, use the
power of the people individually to remove the power granted by inequality
and work toward a goal of removing the yolk of servitude rather than
working toward the goal of yolking others.  This is the view held by
Classical Liberalism as professed by Thomas Jefferson through John
Dewey.  It is a belief in mutual respect and cooperation to the end of
freedom, peace, and justice.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org