: Right, time for a logic bomb:Always thought you'd have to resort to bombing eventually. As long as there wont be a land logic army following?
: 1:Humans exist within a social structure/network.
They do
: We can take this as a given, inellucable irreducible fact. Lets call it Being, or Social Being, or perhaps Totality.
Lets call it "humans exist within a social network" without making leaps into the dark
: Whatever, all human societies by definition exist as a single Totality.
As the collection of all those humans networkinf activities. Not as a seperable, superior precursor.
The other points being somewhat different following the above point. I'll deal with thr major ones.
: 3:A Being (Totality) is, be and of itself, meaningless, it presents no relation, and just is. to know it fully we must know it internally, i.e. by its divisions and contradictions.
Knowing it 'internally' means knowing the individual people who happen to be networking thus creating something we can call society.
: 4:The Liberal Totality, therefore, can be shown thusly: a presumption of the absolute isolation of the individual, and a de facto recognition of self-hood in *opposition* to the moral/political Law.
There is no attempt at isolation, as per John Stuart Mill, the individual being sovereign over himself does not have to become his brothers keeper nor his slave. There is no denial of influence but a rejection of the "therefore youre ours" conclusion held by many. The individual does not "recognise itself in the totality" the individul recognises itself as a whole - it may see others as a totality but not itself, it does not view itself as if from a 3rd party (well, for me certainly - I dont say "im a such and such bit in society")
: that to be an atomised individual, you need an authoritarian state to reconcile that individual with its facticiy of social Being.
Because there is no "Being" only the networking activities of individuals an authoritarian state seeks to mediate these activities into a specific set of criterion and rules. What Mill railed against was societal norms (ie the commonly held beliefs and activities of many other individuals), what libertairan types rail against the the enactment of those 'norms' as well as the personal convictions of politicians, into coercive unprinciples laws.
: 7:This is so even in Gee's Anarcho-Capitalist Utopias, wherein he transposes the bourgeois mode of Law (letigiousness, etc.) with its modes of positivity and privatised rights, in the form of free market courts, etc. I effect, Gee's anarchism, silently, contains an understanding of social Being,
Replace with the networking activities of individuals
: and seeks to sublimate it with courts and bourgeois law. Instead of the authoritarian state being made up of humans, for Gee it is the inhuman machinic market.
The "inhuman" market is a result of human networking and valuing. It is as "inhuman" as what goes on at parties, As "inhuman" as the act of choosing and discrimatory valuing.
: Except libertarianism posits a mad god dictator in the form of the market.
If you hold the market to be a "mad god" then you must also hold the "Totality" likewise.
: I esent the distinction, its just Socialism, inherent to its definition is the end of the state.
What did you mean by "esent"? Anyway, the tag is commonly used to represent one of statisms many guises, the same as you would have capitalism do.
: Of coruse, I could turn round and punch holes in current society- what if people stop agreeing (as they voluntarilly do) to accept Dolalrs?
So they can disagree on how many tractors to make - by just buying (if they can) or not.
: What if people decide that religion is better than lending money and usury? Current society is predicated on all sorts of unspoken agreements, that allow it to reconcile itself with social Being.
The unspoken agreements are basically an agreement not to do battle over every little thing (except in nightclubs!) and to accept a means of exchange as valid on the understanding that it is stable as a retainer of value. All the other ones around personal relationships are not as relavent to this. I would contend that having observed people as being 'used' to certain things does *not* mean they would accept and agree to *anything* (implicit in this is that humankind have a specific nature). The idea of "each from their ability to each to their need" being one such proposal.
