Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Mon, 6 Jan 97 13:49:25 GMT

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
> >compromised.
> You're not listening. Equal responsibility, not status, not opportunity,
> responsibility.

But when man returns to the state of nature which we are calling Anarchy
(or I am, at least), then all are equal in every social sense. It is
only when alliances are made, and individuals start infringing on the
liberty of others that inequality occurs.

I agree, though, that equality of responsibility will remain so, at all
times during an anarchic state.

> 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?

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the Army and the Police
force, etc.. are not set up with "Get the Public" as their guiding
force. They are upholders of the law, not the law in themselves. If the
law says "Get him" then they'll get you, yes, but they're not your enemies,
they're merely the executive of the legislative. It is the legislative that
you must confront. And the legislative is what /you/ make it (ideally).
You do this, at present, by voting for the right people for you. Agreed,
the current political - how shall we put it - shambles in this country at
the moment is not very preferable to most people. What we're talking about,
though, is setting up a system of ideas which would right all the wrongs
that are currently occurring within our 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.

How about the Criminal Justice Bill? I did a study on that for my Politics

> There are no shortage of instances on your own doorstep.

Of course not. Every day there are acts and bills debated within Parliament
which adversely affect and persecute people who don't necessarily deserve it,
and I *don't* agree with it. Fact is, if you want something to change, then
you have to fight for it, and you will be opposed all the way by the
people who make a cushy living out of that same legislation.

> >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.

Yes. There is.

Our whole judicial system is based around giving people as much freedom as
possible. Admittedly, in recent times, there have been some controversial
laws passed which have attracted a lot of attention. Just think about it,
though. Who is more free, us, or the people in the late 19th Century?
I know which time I'd rather live in. Times are a changin', my friend.
What we all hope for is going to come true eventually, thanks to people
fighting for our rights. The right to life is well contested in this
country, and it is the law that is preserving that right.

> 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.

The beaurocracy is a fair analogy. There is too much, I'll agree with that
but unfortunately it is, as you say, self-perpetuating. Beaurocracy breeds
beaurocracy. The system itself is unaffected by such [I can't type the B
word again, it's too long :)], in most ways other than time.

> Who watches
> the watchmen?

We, the people, should watch them, and give them a good kick up the arse (that's
Ass, for the American readers) when they overstep the mark.

> >> 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?

The State.

The only reason that a state can remain in perpetual existance is because we
allow it to. There is a contract between it and us. We give up our right
to total freedom (Anarchy), and in return the state protects us. It is not
in its interest to opress us, because then it becomes unstable, and risks
falling apart. It is not the state the opresses, it is the government.

Here is one problem with our argument. We've been using "State" and "Government"
interchangeably. They are not synonymous. A state can exist without a
government. The government is an exercise of the will of the people over
the members of a state. The state is permanent, whilst governments rise
and fall. John Major is not our Head of State, he is the Head of Government.
They are different and independant.

> Just try it and you'll find yourself banged
> up in the scrubs* (or worse) before you know what's hit you.

Depends on the tactics.

> Try
> refusing to get involved in a war you don't agree with when the
> conscriptors come knocking on your door.

No problem, I'll fail the medical anyway.

> Try refusing jury service.

One of the duties you owe to the state in return for the preservation of
your rights. You can't expect to get a one sided bargain.

> Try
> sharing an honest opinion with the next policeman you come into contact
> with.

Two things:

1) I respect the police, because they are merely doing their job. I'm
*never* offensive to policemen in public or in private. If they overstep
their authority, then I have cause to be angry, but until that point, they
are just another working man/woman.

2) I shared a Joint with a Policeman on Saturday night :)

> 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.

Neither (ideally) should serve the other. It is a contract by which you
agree to do things for them, and they agree to do things for you.

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

My dad did the central heating designs, you know ;P

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