Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Tue, 31 Dec 96 15:06:33 GMT

XYZ wrote:

> > From:
> > 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" :)
> Americans have this nasty habit of failing to distinguish the difference
> between freedom and anarchy. They are not the same thing. Anarchy
> is the loss of freedom because it is "everybody for themself".

I'd agree with that. It's the balance between liberty and equality.
In an Anarchy, all men (and women :) become equal, WRT nature, *but*
they lose their freedom becuase there is nothing to protect them from
others who are stronger physically. Then you have people arise who are
"More equal than others", if you like.

> > > 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 question, therefore, is: How would such a society (state?) evolve.
> > That's what I think we need to look at.
> Don't underestimate self-interest as a source of many laws and
> morality. Most people have an unsuppresed empathy for others,
> therefore they can relate to the pain that they would inflict on
> others if they were to rob, rape, or kill other humans beings. Since
> most people do not want to be robbed, raped, killed, or feel pain,
> they agree on laws to make such behavior illegal.

Correct, /but/ for some people, self-interest is taken further, to the point
where one individual cares only about what s/he achieves, and not about the
people who are hurt during this achievement. This is, IMO, the stumbling
block of Anarchy.

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