On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Martin Traynor wrote:
> 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
Example: gas stations are usually relatively undamaged after incidents like
racial rioting in the U.S., regardless of the destruction inflicted on
the surrounding buildings.
> 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.
This is plausible. There is reasonably solid evidence that U.S.
Kindergarten actively instructs students to act unintelligent, and that
this behavior is *difficult* to unlearn.
I'm starting to wonder how close my Iskandran Badgers are to an anarchy.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////