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

Martz (
Sat, 4 Jan 1997 20:02:16 +0000

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, wrote:
>How would
>you organise this self-government
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Contradiction in terms. It would organise itself, growing out of
transactions between parties.

>Would you even have territorial boundaries?

This is a crucial question. Yes, there would be territorial boundaries.
There would be boundaries between the land that I own and the land that
my neighbour owns, and so on. On my land, I would be king. I would
negotiate my own trade terms, I would be responsible for protecting my
borders and on that land my word would be law. If a bunch of people who
lived beside each other decided to combine and form a nation-state of
whatever form they wanted (democracy, dictatorship etc.) they would be
free to do so. If they wished to hand over their responsibilities to a
friendly leader who would take care of everything for them, so be it.
That is their right and I'm sure there'll be no shortage of volunteers
for the post of king. A self-regulating system can allow the existence
of any other social structure within it, if that's what people want. The
reverse is not true.

The difficulty is how to move there from the current structure of
territorial ownership. As I've said before, I'm not sure we *can* go
from the present situation to the one I've outlined. At the very least
the transition would be bloody and the outcome uncertain. I do know that
once attained, it's a place I'd like to live.

> How is any kind of
>convention enforced upon the people who make life difficult for others?

Same as now. Force of arms. Although you're misleading yourself again by
using the term 'convention'. You've got to step outside the language of
nation-state before you can see it clearly.

>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?

Voluntary contributions. If you care about someone who is facing a
particular hardship and can afford to help them, go for it.

>Would there be any welfare state?


>Would there be
>"meetings" to discuss what people should do, or do you just do what you

Do what you want, but bear in mind that if you adversely affect me by
your actions I will respond. If our lives interact enough that some
ground rules need to be agreed then we'll have a meeting and discuss it.

>Does it have safegaurds against invasion?

If you want to. If you want to hire some organisation to protect your
boundaries that's down to you. I know I will. Very high priority.

>Does it go to war?

This also applies to your previous question; saying 'it' in this context
is again implying some kind of state entity which will respond as an
entity. There is no it. If anything, 'it' is 'they' i.e. the individuals
and organisations which exist. I use 'it' as a term of convenience when
describing the structure but in the context of your questions 'it'
doesn't apply. Responses to threats (or anything else) are taken by
individuals at their own cognisance.

>Does it provide public services?

If there is a demand for a given service to be provided then one or more
businesses will, for a fee, provide that service. That's how supply and
demand works.

>Does it have censorship?

I'm sure there would be censorship. I could control access to anything I
liked ... on my own land. If enough people gave a damn about banning
something then they could group together and apply social and economic
pressure and perhaps even have an agreement to censor applied beyond the
boundaries of territory they control. If that's a meme they choose to
spend their time and money propogating that's their business. However,
the Mary Whitehouses (guardian of the public morals) of this world would
no longer be blackmailing a government into spending *my* money to
propogate *their* memes, few, if any, of which I agree with. Likewise,
while I would have to pay to preserve my freedoms, nobody would be
forcing me to pay to limit them. Our tax money currently supports a
judicial system which tells us what we can and cannot do in the privacy
of our own homes. From your posts on other threads I can tell that
you're not a 100% law-abiding citizen ;) I guess that's because you
think some laws are just plain stupid (I know I do). Yet even though you
think the legislature restricts you beyond the point where you feel it
is doing a decent job, you have to pay for the whole damn package. Do
you honestly not mind paying money to ensure that two consenting adults
don't nail each others genitals to a table? Or that the terminally ill
cannot request euthanasia? ...

>Age limits on detrimental practices (smoking etc...)? Age limits on
>sex, both hetro and homosexual?

If enough people care enough about any given issue, something will be

>Does it have a currency?

Of course.

>An economy?


>A figurehead?

I doubt it.

> a flag?

A number of them, probably. If you mean some universally accepted symbol
of national identity, of course not.

>an overall purpose?

Do you mean something other than the aims and ambitions of individuals?
Why should it?

>> Your question is again posed from a
>> statocentric (is that a word?)
>'tis now :)
>> viewpoint.
>But I don't know what it means :)

I mean you are looking at this from a viewpoint which assumes the
existence of a state, or some similar central driving force. You've got
to step outside that viewpoint if you're to see what I'm trying to

>> 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

No it isn't. Even in its perfect form democracy is the needs of the many
overruling the needs of the few. In reality it's more usually the needs
of the few overruling the needs of the many.

>, 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.

'The true path'??? You're starting to sound like a prophet. If a 'true
path' exists (which I doubt) what makes you think a debate is going to
find it? What if there is more than one 'true path'? The path that is
true for you and the path that is true for me. One of us is fucked, eh?

>You will *never* get away
>from the pressures of others to do as they will

I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Do you mean that social pressures
will apply whenever there are other people who you interact with? If so,
I agree with you 100%. So what? I will weigh my options and either bend
to the pressure or not, depending on how important the particular
freedom I'm being pressured to give up is to me and what I stand to lose
if I don't. Self-regulatory order in action.

>But I'm saying that unless someone puts a state together, it cannot

Depends what you mean by state. Relevant options are;

1. the existing condition or position of a person or thing

2. an organised political community under one government

If you mean the latter, then I agree but your point is moot as I'm not
suggesting we do put a state together. I realise I've probably been
using those definitions interchangably, which may be the source of your
confusion. Sorry about that. From now on I'll only use the word state to
mean #2.

>And they are going to decide how to regulate themselves, that will
>not "just happen".

Bingo. They are going to decide how to regulate themselves. Not each
other. They may *agree* on common regulations but that is a consensual
transaction and is the very foundation of the system I'm describing.

>> 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?

>From whatever talent or resource I sell for a living, of course.

>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.

Yep. So if I'm to thrive beyond the inherent limitations of a barter
system then I and the people I want to do business with will have to
agree a currency, and some terms and conditions of trade in advance. A
'standard contract' would soon evolve which could then be modified if
necessary to suit the specifics of a given situation. Look on the back
of a purchase order form from any large business and you'll find their
terms and conditions of trade. A list of rules that you have to follow
if you want to do business with them. Of course if *you've* got
something *they* want then they may have to accept *your* terms instead.
That's how it works. No govt. involvement at all.

>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.

See above re: 'State'.

>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.

No it doesn't. My model takes account of the kind of compromises that I
would likely have to make. Consensual transactions.


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

No more random quotes.