Martin William Smith wrote:
>alister air writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, do you ever wonder why there's no broadly
>> united left coalition... anywhere? Do you think that pointless (and
>> inaccurate) diatribes against fellow anti-capitalists might have
>> something to do with it?
>
>I don't think so. I think it is because left thinkers are paralyzed
>to some degree by their own rejection of government. A coalition
>won't work for long without structure and rules. As soon as there are
>structure and rules, there is government.
Interesting theory, trouble is it appears to be based on readily observable
facts. Most "left" thinkers don't reject "government", most left thinkers
don't even reject the political state.
[...]
>How widely should power be distributed? Suppose it is completely
>distributed (100%). Then every person has a veto. All votes must be
>unanimous. Since no vote will be unanimous in a large population, no
>votes will pass.
This assumes three things:
(1) that every person should have a say in every decision. This is silly, I
don't want a say in every issue, I only want a say in issues that actually
affect me; and
(2) that there must always be irreconcileable conflicts of interest between
people that will cause them to have irreconcileable disagreements; or
(3) that sensible people with a common interest will not be able to some to
a sensible agreement on important issues that affect their common interest.
I'm not too sure why you assume any of these things. Humans are basicly a
species that has evolved to co-operate for the common good. Can you explain
why you believe this has changed? They are vital questions for anyone on
the left, if your assumptions are correct then the left is definitely on
the wrong track.
[...]
>What about stupid people? I mean really stupid people. And there
>*are* lots of them. Should stupid people have the same voting power
>as intelligent people?
If the intelligent people co-operate, we can usually get the *really*
stupid people to follow us blindly, following people blindly is one of the
major symptoms of base stupidity after all. As for the moderately stupid,
you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to know that what's in your best
interests will be the same as what's in the best interests of other people
in the same boat.
> Should there be disqualifying acts of
>stupidity that cause a person to forfeit his voting right? For
>example, if you own a swimming pool and you don't teach your children
>to swim and one of them falls into the pool and drowns, then you are a
>really stupid person
Fascinating theory, the implications being that if you don't fence your
pool, but your kids *don't* fall in and drown, then you are not as stupid.
> and you should not be allowed to vote on matters
>that affect everyone. Or maybe a stupid act should be punishable by
>loss of voting right for a specific length of time. If your child
>drowns in your swimming pool because you didn't teach him to swim, and
>you are convicted of this stupidity, then you are deprived of your
>voting right for, say, 15 years.
I like it in principle, though the penalty seems quite severe. (But then
you *are* a yank, so I suppose I should expect that.) I was just thinking
that you might want to keep some powder dry for second and third such
offenses. If your kids drown in the pool one after the other and you
*still* don't fence the pool, I'd say the penalties need to start getting
stiffer, but you don't leave much room for that.
Seriously though, why do you yanks think that a punitive system is the only
way to convince anyone of what's good for them? Where do you get off?
>
>These decisions and others must be made by the members of any
>coalition. You can't just say everybody is equal and nobody has to be
>bound by rules they don't like.
Why must decisions about what is best for me and my family be made by
people who would be unaffected by such decisions?
>It's not surprising to me that left coalitions fall apart.
I think the real reason is that they aren't based on the essential element
of common interest. You see, as I mentioned, most on the left don't reject
political power and the political state. In fact they want such power for
themselves. They can't *all* have it you see, so there is a fundamental
conflict of interest between them.
Such fundamental conflicts of interest are at the heart of most cases of
lack of co-operation.
Which is what leads anarchists and others from the libertarian left to the
conclusion that the political state and political power is incompatible
with a society operating on co-operative principles. Its not really
ideological, its just being practical.
Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas
|
