> > 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.
But there are humans who have it in their nature to be subordinate, while
there are those who crave power, and others who crave possession. In
an Anarchic state, these people would be wonderfully happy, because there
is no governing body, then there is nothing to stop them persuing whatever
ambition they want. But this may have serious implications on others,
hence the original purpose of government - that there comes a point where
one person is insufficiently strong to survive on his own, due to the
actions of others. The law was created to preserve people.
The power hungry, and the greedy cause a threat to the "ordinary" people,
and thus to protect themselves, they must form government. Anarchy ends.
> 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.
If you see above, it's more about taking other people into consideration when
carrying out your actions, but you don't have to compromise
because of people's instructions or opinions.
> In the
> society we live in, each of us is forced to pay for other peoples
> lifestyles.
Yeah, fucking students :)
> 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.
Law is one of the most fucked up systems, where it makes sense on paper,
but never works in practice.
> 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.
And if the law were truly just, you would be permitted to do so
anyway.
> 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. ;)
Richard Jones
Cell 17
Block J
Wormwood Scrubs
(see ya there :0)
Drakir
-------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
-------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
-------------