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

Martz (
Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:37:57 +0000

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, wrote:
>M. Traynor wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, wrote:
>> >In an Anarchy, all men (and women :) become equal
>> The only thing that becomes 'equal' about them is they carry equal
>> responsibility for themselves (including their freedom).
>Yes, that's how I meant it. They all have equal opportunity, equal
>status, etc... Unfortunately, when total equality occurs, freedom is

You're not listening. Equal responsibility, not status, not opportunity,
responsibility. Whether the potential contained in that responsibility
ever manifests itself as opportunity or status is down to the specifics
of the individuals situation; how he uses that responsibility, the
people he interacts with, the circumstances he finds himself in will all
contribute to his success or failure (by his own measures).

>No matter how paranoid one may be, the police and armed forces are not
>out specifically to "get you".

Pardon? Are you honestly trying to tell me that you can think of no
example of where an individual had need to defend himself from the
unwelcome attention of a heavy-handed state? The american constitution
was written with that very concept in mind (hence, 'right to bear
arms'). Oh, and if you do look for examples, don't limit your search to
the dim and distant past, or to far-off lands with overtly oppressive
regimes. There are no shortage of instances on your own doorstep.

>They may come across as not all that
>pleasant sometimes, but there is a system of laws (no matter how
>ineffectual) which protects your rights against them.

No. There isn't. The judicial system is (in this country at least) just
one more arm of a self-perpetuating beaurocratic monolith which makes
its own rules, with its own loopholes and escape clauses. Who watches
the watchmen?

>> And thus a self-regulatory order is born. Most people will happily give
>> up certain freedoms (to kill, rape etc.) in return for reciprocation
>> from those around them.
>Of course, and this is the basis for the rights in most states. One has the
>right to kill, for example, but one also has the right to live. Like
>contradicting memes, these cannot live within a group of cooperating
>hosts, without one of them being broken. Therefore, the social contract
>is one where people trade in one of the rights (usually the right to kill,
>due to a self-preservation meme) in return for the upholding of the other
>by the state. Hence, everyone (supposedly) stays alive.

Wrong. Your right to protection from me is upheld by the state, my right
to protection from you is upheld by the state. Who upholds our right to
protect ourselves from them? Just try it and you'll find yourself banged
up in the scrubs* (or worse) before you know what's hit you. Try
refusing to get involved in a war you don't agree with when the
conscriptors come knocking on your door. Try refusing jury service. Try
sharing an honest opinion with the next policeman you come into contact
with. Oh, don't forget to unsub from the list before you attempt any of
these suggestions, or you'll have a *very* full mailbox when you're
finally released. The simple fact is that governments claim more rights
for themselves than they would ever dream of allowing you or I and in my
book that constitutes me serving them, not them serving me.

* Note for non-brits: Wormwood Scrubs, high-security prison in London.


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

No more random quotes.