On 18 Dec 96 at 9:21, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.sl wrote:
> All Anarchic theories that I have encountered rely on *all* humans
> being interested in other people's well being, as well at their own.
> They also rely on people wanting to live in peace.
Not really. For an anarchic society to remain stable for any length
of time relies on a majority of its occupants wanting to live in
peace (at least whatever majority is required to protect itself
against the rest), but I don't see that as being against human
nature. Yes, the human beast has a tendency towards violence but it's
usually as a response to a perceived threat rather than unprovoked
assault (or have I just led a sheltered life?). As to your first
point about other peoples well being; I think it's exactly the
opposite. Anarchy is one of the few (only?) systems which doesn't
give a shit whether or not I give a shit about anyone else. In the
society we live in, each of us is forced to pay for other peoples
lifestyles. I know people with families who, when interest rates went
mental a few years ago, had a hard time keeping a roof over their
heads and food in their kids bellies, yet tax money was still being
extorted from them to pay for someone elses home and someone elses
kids. With anarchy, you would only be giving someone else money if
you wanted to, or if they were stealing it from you, and in the
latter case no-one would question your right to defend yourself. Just
try defending yourself against HM Customs and Excise (IRS equivalent)
when they come to collect your taxes and we'll see what happens. If
you manage to get a local prison I'll even come visit you and bring
you some cigarettes. ;)
> Anarchy is a popularly confused term. It is the non-presence of government,
> not survival by violence. It is where the people govern themselves,
> and thus must have an efficient moral code. Here is where Anarchy
> falls down, 'cos its criteria are simply not fulfilled.
Depends what you mean by moral code. This is (I think) where Noctem
and I were going WRT education. The moral code which you think is
necessary for an anarchic society to work needn't be anything more
than rational self-interest. You may say that most people don't even
have that and I'm inclined to agree, but that's where the education
comes in. I don't think the lack of rationale is inherent, I think
it's acquired as part of the indoctrination of the nanny state. I
think that given a chance, individuals who displayed unacceptable
aggression would quickly be selected out of the gene pool. The only
problem is that unless sufficient people are educated towards
self-responsibility rather than being mothered by the state, then
anarchy *will* descend to chaos pretty quickly and could spell the
end of us all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later.
iQCVAwUBMrfxE15rBERarcK9AQHEdgP/fLsnMxuba0MRX+sT9IxwYbrOY9/qZq21
5BY1vXSzxyvMyGB9FjOUuNa9JFZOikLqem130uuGYp4racldBoDN/dNhG73GSp/M
y/iIaeGhExnvTLTQpga6JRZVBpCEp+ZP2i+aNmpmBV2zmCqWhjMkKsjgHA2dDt9G
M+f0am6VCo4=
=QtXv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Martz <m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> For my PGP key, email me with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will followYou were born in a prison. You've been in a prison so long you no longer believe there's a world outside. V