virus: Anarchy (Was: Sociological Change)

Lior Golgher (
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:46:48 -0800

Martin Traynor wrote:
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.

Drakir wrote:
And if the law were truly just, you would be permitted to do so anyway.


We're missing something preety important over here. We may praise the Liberal-Capitalist way forever. We may say that the best government is the one which interfere its citizens the least. We may say that the best regime is the one which has the weakest authority over its citizens. We may say that noone should *force* us to finance anyone else unless we want to. I preety much agree with all that. And yet all those refer to the benefit of oneself as an individual - Myself infront of Society. We miss the second second side of it: The benefit of oneself as a part of society - Me and my people infront of the rest. Anarchy is the ultimate materialization of the first intention - The benefit of oneself as an individual. Therefore it can survive and exceed all other regimes only when the second intention is fully settled. If the regime has to take care of the benefit of the whole, it will deform from Anarchy to a tougher regime, with less individual liberty and more public security. This need may be imaginary or manipulative, such as the war of '1984', but it may also be realistic as hell. Throughout the Great Crisis of 1929-39, entrepreneurship and individual diligence became meaningless. All Your property was gone with the downfall of stock exchange and banks, no matter how hard you worked and how creative was your business. Individual liberty, including the freedom to choose whether to pay taxes, may sound noble and important, but when it fails to maintain you public benefit would exceed it. Therefore the New Deal has beaten noble Liberalism. Now, Education, or better put it social awareness & involvement, plays an essential role in the stability of society. Low awareness and tendency to irrational mob reactions >=lead to=> decline in stability and security >=lead to=> need of governmental\regime's intereference >=lead to=> more stress on public benefit than on individual benefit >=might radically lead to=> Totalitarian regimes and New Order. The '29 Crisis didn't prove that the Liberal-Capitalist way is failure. It only proved that the individual isn't naturally the wisest, but his wisdom is a necessity for the Liberal-Capitalist way to work. (Does it sound like I'm speaking in the air?) The mob histerical reaction during October '29 was the one to cause a minor decline in stock value become a radical descent.

Now feel free to tear my post apart.