Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)

Martz (
Sat, 28 Dec 1996 12:45:04 +0000

On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, wrote:

>I'd go with that. We seem to be moving closer to an agreed definition.
>All I've been driving at is that it cannot last long without degenerating
>into some form of society.

I wouldn't call that degeneration. Quite the reverse in fact. I think a
stable society *would* evolve, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
It just needn't be one based around coercion.

>I find #3 quite interesting. It's a far more obtuse definition. Does this
>mean that government can still exist, but if 3 is true then Anarchy
>is present? Or do all 3 points have to be true for Anarchy to exist?
>Surely not as 1 and 2 contradict when applied together.

Agreed. As I've said, #2 does not apply to the structure I am attempting
to describe.

>> Of the nouns, only lawlessness sits
>> comfortably,
>A lack of Civil Order is fairly accurate, but the bit about peace is
>fairly subjective.

No. Lack of civil order is definitely not applicable. The very word
'civil' suggests a militarist/governmental viewpoint which we need to
step outside if we are to discuss it impartially. I suspect the reason
that term has crept into the definition of anarchy is a result of common
usage, and the reason it is commonly considered to be intrinsic to
anarchy is that most people cannot imagine an unregulated life being
anything but chaos. I don't believe that is necessarily true. I believe
that a lack of coercive regulation can lead to a societal structure
built around the individual rather than the collective. However, as I
mentioned in another branch of this thread, the route from here to there
is unclear and is fraught with dangers and if time and circumstance are
not right then the chaos you predict could well result.

>Agreed, but it's what I beleive will occur when Anarchy begins to age.

So our difference is now clear. As usual it has come down to semantics
and value judgements, funny how that always seems to happen. Thanks to
whoever called for a definition (Lior? Stephen?) and to Wade for
supplying it.


For my public key, <> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.

No more random quotes.