Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Mon, 30 Dec 96 12:12:41 GMT

M.Traynor Wrote:

> 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.

I used the word "degeneration" purely because if Anarchy is the aim, and thus
the "higher" then any deviation from that means that the object has not been
attained, and thus the "higher" "degenerates" (appologies for the excessive use
of "quotes" :)

> 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.

The qQuestiong, therefore, is: How would such a society (state?) evolve.
That's what I think we need to look at.

> >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.

Or to the structure that I envisage. We seem to be looking at this problem
from the same angle, but just through different coloured glasses.

BTW, can anyone answer the questions I asked aboved, about definition #3?

> >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.

OK, point taken.

> 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.

True, I can't.

> 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.

It's all down to the nature of humans in the end. If we're lucky, then
Chaos won't result, but I'm sufficiently cynical and pessimistic about
the people today, that all I see on such a path is violence, hatred, and

> >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?)

Actually, it was me :)

>and to Wade for
> supplying it.

Yeah, man, cheers.

Richard Jones "We are the New Breed We are the Future."