Re: Words Hurt

Erik Moeller (
Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:24:11 +0200

>There are few, if any, free markets today. There will be few, if any, by
>sunrise tomorrow morning. This does not demonstrate that there could not
>be or should not be a lot more free markets in the future.

Taking a look at the presence of what you call "free markets" now and in the
past however gives us an idea of how likely such a system is. Learn from

>>have agreed with me in the past that today's big industry supports
>>government because they get in trouble without them. Do you really think
>>stand any chance against The Powers That Be [TM]?

>Frankly, yes, and I'm not alone. Yes, BECAUSE I'm not alone.

A little known part of German history is the German revolution from 1918 to
1919. Hundreds of thousands of workers in Germany protested against the
power elite after WW I. They were mainly defeated with propaganda ("Jews
caused the World War"), but some protests were simply shot down. They wanted
a mild form of socialism, nationalization of some big enterprises. The
German foreign minister, Walther Rathenau, was a main initiator of the
treaty of Rapallo, which was made in 1922 and where Germany and the Soviet
Union agreed on economic cooperation and the renunciation of reparation
payments. Rathenau was killed by nationalists on the 24th of June 1922.

Just one example of a failed revolution. You could also look at the
1968-movement, which was defeated with propaganda -- again.

And now a few hundred persons want to change the world economic system. And
they think that they will succeed because they are not alone. Sorry, even if
you were a million people, you could not succeed.

>Obviously, we don't think the world goes to hell when the people can have
>what they want. Why? Because people don't want their world to go to hell.

Some people want that. Not to hell, but to heaven. It is called the
Many of these people are in high power positions.

The other problem is local power. In a decentralized market, you have local
powerlords. Some of them could easily get hold on nukes, biological and
chemical weapons.

> So instead they take steps to protect themselves from others who would
>harm them, and work with others to make their own lives better. As a
>result, the world gets better, not worse, when people can do what they

Why are there people who harm others?

>Partly right, partly wrong. I'm a soft-determinist: I think that you have
>free will if you do not know your own fate. However, with respect to the
>media, CAN I actually make the masses think what I want, given control of
>the media?

In Ruanda, it was sufficient to kill about one million Tutsi (CIA

>It seems to me that in most places where the government has
>taken control of the media, most people don't believe the media, especially
>with respect to the government.

What nonsense. People believe whatever they are told. There are really
enough examples for this.
The Vietnam war, the Gulf war, WW I, WW II, the Watergate affair,
*anything*. There's no chance
that Saddam's people would ever revolt against him unless he loses control
of the media.

>My immortality is worth nothing if I don't do anything with it. That's why
>none of us wants to become immortal and then do nothing forever. :)
>Personally, I want to become immortal so I can do MORE "deeds" with my
>life, achieve more, build more.

And what exactly do you do / achieve?

>This bears some merit. I recognize that this list is for positive
>discussion, but would it hurt much to change the policy, adding that people
>who want to criticize extropianism should have to add the subject prefix
>"ANTI:" to their posts?

I'd prefer "BASICS:", but I guess ANTI would be sufficient.

Erik Moeller