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

Martz (
Tue, 7 Jan 1997 00:45:40 +0000

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, wrote:
>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?

All the definitions of organised in my dictionary presume some guiding
force external to that which is being organised. So no, it wouldn't.

>> >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

Nope. They would simply be groups of people who own some land. If they
have representatives through whom I can deal with that group then all
the better for me; makes life simpler.

>> 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

I'm talking about a contract. A contract between those individuals and
their chosen leader.

> These people do not have the "Right" to form a state. They can,
>but they have no right to do so.

Forget state. It has different meanings for each of us and we're using
it inconsistently. And the right I'm talking about is that afforded them
by their contract, please don't go tangenital on that because we could
be here for the rest of our lives talking about rights.

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

I can see the queue forming already.

>> 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.

I would join forces with lots of others, no doubt.
I would employ the services of many, no doubt.
I would form all of these associations voluntarily.

That is how I see it operating. We do not necessarily (IMO) end up back
where we started. Do you see the one word in the previous paragraph
which isn't a description of where we are now? Voluntarily.

>> 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.

You've got one. Identify the person or organisation you feel is best
able to protect you and provide for you and cater to your every need,
(your mother?) ... and then strike the best deal you can with them,
where you give up a certain amount of your freedom in return for their
services. This would all be pretty similar to what the government does
for you now but at least you entered the contract of your own free will.

>> >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.

Therefore nobody in the world donates money to charity. Nobody in the
world gives cigarettes to homeless people in doorways. Where's the
incentive, huh? It couldn't simply be that I might want to share some of
my comparative success with those less fortunate? I might just do it to
impress chicks ferchrissake. I have no objection to the concept of
charity, it can often be a justifiable investment.

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

Yes. That's why I'll deal with reputable companies if I can afford to
and why I may employ more than one. Much as we do with banks, for
example. Most of commerce runs on principles of trust already so your
point is moot.

>> >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.

Ehhhhm. Don't you mean privatisation? Yes, it's happening. Yes, it's
unfair from the POV of anybody who's been paying for these industries
for years (with their stolen tax money) and still is (National Health
Insurance is a joke, if a private insurance company broke contract that
blatantly they'd be shut down and possibly lynched in a week). However,
my real objection is that these services were nationalised in the first

>> 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.

I don't know what you assume but it appears to be wrong.

>"Enough People" simply isn't enough. It
>has to be utterly unanimous, and upheld by the people whom it affects.
>it's some people imposing their will on others, which is what we want to avoid.

You will never avoid it. I'd like to minimise it and to give myself the
best fighting chance.

>> >Does it have a currency?
>> Of course.
>And who decides what it is?

Any two or more people or organisations who wish to do business with
each other. Do you really think the banking industry couldn't survive
without government?

>> 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.

Short of Borganism it'll never happen. Therein lies the fundamental
flaw. Democracy is a lie.

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


>> What if there is more than one 'true path'?
>Then we're buggered (sideways with a sledgehammer ;)

Nope. See below.

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

Why don't you go your way and I go mine? (sounds like a song) Wouldn't
that be nice.

>> >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.

Which, I suspect, are far more influential than any laws.

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

Fine. If that's what makes sense in the situation.

>> 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
>[2]'s the definition I've been using.

Among others.

>> >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.

You're finally catching on. Well done.

>> >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?

We're all working for ourselves Richard. We do so by selling our
services for the best price we can get. In many cases, what suits an
individual best is to work exclusively for a single employer and enjoy
the security of a reasonably secure income.


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

No more random quotes.