Re: The Property Protocol

Suresh Naidu (
Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:06:09 -0500 (EST)

Suresh Naidu
occaisonal student
math 1a, computer science

Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.

On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, John K Clark wrote:

> From: Suresh Naidu <> Wrote:
> >The reason I advocate anarchy is because [...]
> You're the strangest "anarchist" I've ever seen. Anarchy means no government,
> you may be able to dream up a nice euphemism for it, but what you're
> advocating has the 2 essential ingredients that make a government a government.

No, anarchy means no authority. We had industrial laissez faire before,
and more damage was done to people and planet in that brief 100 years than
any time period preceding.

> 1) It claims rights and powers individuals do not have.

If you really want to get down to it, nobody has any rights. Your vaunted
claim that ownerships is a right is just really just as "invalid" as my
claim that people have the right to have a say in matters that affect
them. Any social system is based on defining what rights which people
have. You take the right of ownership and assign it to everybody, so you
can take it away.

It has no institutionalized authority. Which I see has having no

> 2) At any one time in any one place, only one may exist.

Not so. You can have hordes and hordes of them, all over. If you don't
like one, leave, join another, or start your own. Of course, if you run a
repressive one, then nobody will join you as there are egalitarian and
free systems as alternatives.

> >Factories and farms are owned by the community, thus
> >everybody gets a say on what activities the business is
> >doing. No this is not state socialism. It's a business
> OK, if it's really a business then I can resign from it, and because a
> business doesn't claim any rights that individuals don't have, when that
> "business" informs me that they don't like the way I'm living my life, I can
> just tell them to go soak their head.

Yes. You can. What are they going to do about it? But you better figure
out a better way to earn your food. It's completely voluntary.

> Terrific! The consumers can vote for higher quality, lower prices and less
> pollution. The workers can vote for higher wages, more time off, and better
> health care. It's paradise, everybody's happy.

Please, do you really have that kind of disrespect for people. I'm sure
people, when given the information, can make reasonable decisions based on
circumstance. When people understand the problems, they will solve them.
While government today hoards it's knowledge and says "we know what's
best", a democratic system depends on everybody having access to the
information. I don't think the consumers will vote for cheaper products if
they realize that the workers can't afford to feed themselves as a