Natrafil som dnes pri motani sa Internetom na celkom zaujimavy clanok:
http://jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htmClanok rozobera problemy "bezstrukturovych" spolocnosti (niektori z vas si mozno spomenu na nie tak davno leaknuty dokument z Valve, ktore vraj takto funguje) na priklade feministickeho hnutia, okrem ineho ale obsahuje aj kapitolu Formal and Informal Structures, ktora uzasnym sposobom v jednom odstavci zhrnula moj osobny problem s laissez faire ideologiou:
Citácia:
This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.
Chcel by som sa spytat, ci na toto existuje nejaky rozumny protiargument? Da sa o tom nieco precitat "z druhej strany"? (disclaimer:
autorka nie je random clovek na Internete, je to vyznamna reprezentantka feministickeho hnutia a aktivistka za osobne slobody v USA)
Osobne, ked sa pozeram napriklad na historiu odborov v Amerike zaciatkom 20 storocia, nechava ma idea laissez faire mierne vylakaneho. Staci si pozriet napriklad nieco o
Ludlow Massacre, pripadne
Battle of Blair Mountain, konkretne banici to mali v Amerike pred odbormi az uchylne krute, ale nie len oni. Samozrejme, da sa viest diskusia o tom, ze odbory samotne su casto prezlecena mafia a pre zamestnancov spravili skor menej nez viac, to ale nezmaze fakt, ze za ich vznikom stoja prave katastrofalne podmienky hlavne tych "najspodnejsich" zamestnancov na konci 19 a zaciatku 20 storocia. (osobne nie som fanusikom odborov a tuto diskusiu viest ani nechcem)
Neviem si predstavit, podobne ako pani Freemanova, ako by mala fungovat spolocnost a trh bez akehosi formalneho aparatu, ktory by relativne transparentne nastavoval urcite mantinely bez toho, aby namiesto aparatu formalneho vznikol aparat neformalny, netransparentny a casto tyranicky.