> zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Martin Traynor wrote:
> >
> > > On 18 Dec 96 at 15:46, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.sl wrote:
> > >
> > > > The power hungry, and the greedy cause a threat to the "ordinary"
> > > > people, and thus to protect themselves, they must form government.
> > > > Anarchy ends.
> > >
> > > No. To protect themselves they only have to form a power coalition.
> > > This can have the specific goal of protection from attack *without*
> > > having anything to do with the governance of the people who form it.
> > > BTW, I'm not disputing that there are certain freedoms which it might
> > > make sense to voluntarily relinquish for certain concessions. For
> > > example, you and I might sit down and make an agreement between
> > > ourselves that we will not attack each other. We might sign a contract
> > > specifying the acceptable limits of intrusion upon each others
> > > lifestyles and we may employ an agency of some kind to mediate in
> > > disputes or to take revenge should the pact be broken by one of us.
> > > This consensual agreement can be extrapolated as far as you'd like to
> > > take it, with millions of people having the same or similar terms and
> > > conditions of business with each other and with various enforcement
> > > agencies backing up these contracts, but it does not constitute
> > > government.
> >
> > Implementation details would be interesting.... Explicit constructions
> > would require having a functionally anarchic society to cross-check my
> > speculation.
>
> I can't see that there would be any implementation details, as in
> Anarchy, the details would always be inaccurate, as people are
> free to change as they like, and be as pedantic as they like :)
>
> The idea of an Anarchic society (especially in this day and age) is fairly
> difficult to imagine. Firstly because Anarchy doesn't really support
> a society (by my definition anyway), and secondly, because an anarchy
> would mean the dissolution of the state, and so there's going to be
> all this land that's inhabited, bt ruled by no one. Try convincing me
> that /someone/ will try and invade. As an anarchic system, there would
> be little or no defence.
Cf. my comments on relative definitions of anarchy, in a supposedly
earlier post.
An anarchic-type government [in the sense I abstracted from Traynor, not
Drakir] with a lack of weapons-control conventions could be very
costly to invade.
I see no reason why anarchic-type governments are incompatible with high
technology. It would be difficult to directly convert any current
government into an anarchy *directly*.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////