> BREAKTHROUGH: I finally _agree_ with you on something. Thank you for this
> wonderful decentralization idea. The only problem is you did NOT go FAR
> enough.
>
> You have hit on a very good point: 100% decentralization.
Yes indeed. And as I'm sure many will have noted, 100% decentralization
results in exactly the kind of individual freedom and responsibility that
we have been talking about in the threads on individual freedom. Since
politics is ultimately about coercion, it's not really surprising that
we're back to this subject. (Please let's discard the rose-tinted notion
that "nice" western capitalist democracies are not about coercion: just
try stepping outside of the accepted envelope to find out how "nice" and
open-minded they can be.)
Capitalism and Socialism can be both just as bad as each other when
viewed from an individualistic perspective: one doesn't have to look
far afield in the world to find bad examples of each, so one shouldn't
attribute good or bad to one or the other on the basis of examples.
At the end of the day, any system of government that believes in a
collective standard is inherently coercive by design, and that applies
to all existing forms of government. In general, the only collective
unit that will perform in the way that meets one's own need is oneself.
And that of course is the basis for denying government altogether.
Rich.
-- ########### Dr. Rich Artym ================ PGP public key available # galacta # Email : rich@galacta.demon.co.uk 158.152.156.137 # ->demon # Web : http://www.galacta.demon.co.uk 194.222.245.150 # ->ampr # AMPR : rich@g7exm[.uk].ampr.org 44.131.164.1 BBS:GB7MSW # ->NTS # Fun : Unix, X, TCP/IP, kernel, O-O, C++, SoftEng, Nano ########### More fun: Regional IP Coordinator Hertfordshire + N.London