Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Thu, 2 Jan 97 16:23:03 GMT

Martin Traynor wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, wrote:
> >Yup, OK, so what you're looking for is a minimalist state, where freewill
> >is the governing feature. Is that closer? Does your state have any kind of
> >government or law?
> Self-government and self-regulation.


> No, 'evolve' was the right word. I only took issue because your phrasing
> had made it sound inevitable.

Yes, but what I meant to ask is how would your state be set up? How would
you organise this self-government (after all in a big state it is fairly
difficult)? Would you even have territorial boundaries? How is any kind of
convention enforced upon the people who make life difficult for others?
What about care for people who have serious illnesses through no fault of
their own? Would there be any kind of taxation, or would it be volountary
contributions of money? Would there be any welfare state? Would there be
"meetings" to discuss what people should do, or do you just do what you
want? Does it have safegaurds against invasion? Does it go to war? Does
it provide public services? Does it have censorship? Age limits on
detrimental practices (smoking etc...)? Age limits on sex, both hetro and
homosexual? Does it have a currency? An economy? A figurehead? a
flag? an overall purpose?

That's what I meant to ask, but in not quite so many words :)

> Your question is again posed from a
> statocentric (is that a word?)

'tis now :)

> viewpoint.

But I don't know what it means :)

> If you think about it the very
> concepts of 'putting it together', 'liberty' etc. imply the existence of
> some central guiding force, which is anathema to self-regulation.

Not at all. Democracy is derived from the greek: Demos Kratos meaning
Rule by the People. Essentially, that is self-rule, but the idea has been
distorted. If there is a body of people, then to rule itself, and for
it to be true to self-regulation, then all within the state must have a say
in what goes on, no matter how trivial. This is then, by definition (but
discard modern representations of it), a democracy. There is a kind of
guiding force, and it is debate, the true path /should/ come out on top,
and therefore the people have been guided. You will *never* get away
from the pressures of others to do as they will, unless you endorse, and
act upon total anarchy, where man returns to the state of nature, and lives
on his own.

> A
> self-regulatory state is not 'put together' by anyone. It exists or it
> doesn't.

But I'm saying that unless someone puts a state together, it cannot
exist. State's do not "just happen" because the simple act of some people
getting together and living together is a conscious decision that they
make. And they are going to decide how to regulate themselves, that will
not "just happen".

> The specifics of it; how people interact, who protects whose
> freedoms etc. arise through transactions between individuals and can
> therefore be as diverse as the members of that society. For example, I
> would allocate a certain amount of money per month to pay for personal
> protection, because I'm not the biggest, toughest dude on the block. You
> might decide that you are well capable of looking after yourself and
> keep your money. I have given up the freedom to do what I like with my
> money in return for the insurance of having someone else to protect my
> other freedoms.

Where does this money come from? Surely if you're free to do what you want,
then you can use whatever currency you see fit, and someone else is free to
refuse it.

I really appologise for being so stubborn, but I *cannot* see any state that
relies on self-regulation in this way, as it is such a broad term. It really
requires a lot more specifics. Unfortunately, with specifics, the idea of
self-regulation is often broken down, and the state ceases to be what you are
aiming for, Martin.

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