Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Mon, 6 Jan 97 14:49:04 GMT

M. Traynor wrote:

> 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.

It would still be organised, though, wouldn't it?

> >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.

Are we assuming, at this point, that there are no more states left in the

> 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

Wrong. In such a state, rights do not exist. Rights only exist when a
contract has been made, and then they only exist between the members of the
contract. These people do not have the "Right" to form a state. They can,
but they have no right to do so.

> and I'm sure there'll be no shortage of volunteers
> for the post of king.

Me me me me me me me me ....

> 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.

But surely this would culminate in there being no individuals left to govern
themselves, because if people start to form association, then a person such
as yourself, who does not get involved, will find it harder and harder to
survive without joining one of these states. Vivious circle, we end up
back where we started, right here, talking about it.

> 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.

I'd agree. You'd have to persuade everyone in the world to join with you in
doing it. And by such you break the rule that you wish to uphold:
"Do whatever the fuck you want".

> At the very least
> the transition would be bloody and the outcome uncertain.

And that's not the way to go about it.

> I do know that
> once attained, it's a place I'd like to live.

Hmmm, it would be interesting, but I'd like a get out clause.

> >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.

Do you really believe, though, that people, given the opportunity not to
pay taxes, are going to bother. If you volounteer money, you are just
losing out on some money which could be going into your pocket. The
incentive to contribute is not strong enough.

> >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.

If you hire some organisation, can they not be monetarily persuaded to loosen
their protection by an outside, more wealthy force?

> >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.

Yup, nationalisation. It's happening in this country at the moment. I think
it's great, but a lot of people hate it.

> >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
> done.

Is this a majority? If it is, then your model is just degenerating back into
that which you [I assume] despise. "Enough People" simply isn't enough. It
has to be utterly unanimous, and upheld by the people whom it affects. Otherwise
it's some people imposing their will on others, which is what we want to avoid.

> >Does it have a currency?
> Of course.

And who decides what it is?

> >> 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.

A State will always exist, even if you are the only person living within it.

> >> 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 perfect democracy, unanimity is the ultimat goal.

> In reality it's more usually the needs
> of the few overruling the needs of the many.

Cynic :)

> >, 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.

My child ....

> If a 'true
> path' exists (which I doubt) what makes you think a debate is going to
> find it?

Well it's the best option, isn't it? Otherwise you'd never stand a chance.

> What if there is more than one 'true path'?

Then we're buggered (sideways with a sledgehammer ;)

>The path that is
> true for you and the path that is true for me. One of us is fucked, eh?

See above.

> >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?

Yup, peer pressure.

> 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.

It's not all that easy though is it. You have to be pretty tough not to follow
the herd sometimes.

> 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.

That's the definition I've been using.

> >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.

Themselves being collective. It refers to oneself and everyone in the
contract (or whatever you like to call it).

> They may *agree* on common regulations but that is a consensual
> transaction and is the very foundation of the system I'm describing.

It is also the foundation of basic society.

> >Where does this money come from?
> >From whatever talent or resource I sell for a living, of course.

Are all individuals private self-employed people, contracting their services
out, or can you work for someone?

> >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.

And there are a lot of them.

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