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

Martz (
Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:53:28 +0000

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, wrote:
>Organised, as far as I'm concerned is the way in which something is structured.
>If something is organised, then someone, or a body of individuals has sat
>down and decided how things are going to be structured.

So you believe in god? Who organised the biology of your body? Who
organised the cosmos? What committee sat down and said 'yeah, let's have
jupiter over there and let's make a big shiny thing for it to revolve
around'? They'd still be discussing it.

>> >Are we assuming, at this point, that there are no more states left in the
>> >world?
>> 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.
>What I mean is, does our current state, for example, cease to exist, while
>other states, such as America continue to exist. Does your ideal rely on all
>current states in the world being dissolved, and the implementation (if I
>can get away with using that word) of your theory being universal?

America can do what it likes. The fact that they have a govt. makes it
easier for me to deal with them. Note: I am not claiming that they'll
honour that agreement, history does teach some lessons.

>Square one ... here we come.

You have made that point at least three times and each time I have
agreed with you. I'll make it as clear as I can; I consider a return to
govt. to be at least as likely an outcome as anything else. Can we stop
labouring the point now?

>> >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.
>Essentially you've got that situation already. If you don't like the
>state in which you live, go and live someplace else.

Where? See my other post.

>I see the advantage of your system here though, because geographical boundaries
>are no longer a problem. To uproot and leave the country is an effort, and
>not cheap, and involves leaving family and friends. If you can get the
>system to come to you, then things are much better.

That is one of the advantages, yes.

>Language only. These volountary contributions are in the place of current
>taxation, hence the reason I used the word.

No they're not. People donating money to a favoured cause is not the
same as, or a replacement for, taxes. Taxes would not exist, they would
not be replaced.

>How much do you think charities make in comparison to governments?

How much more do you think they'd make if the govt. wasn't nicking 25%
of our wages?

>> Nobody in the
>> world gives cigarettes to homeless people in doorways.
>I don't, but then I smoke Silk Cut Ultras.
>> Where's the
>> incentive, huh?
>There is none.

But people still do it. I rest my case.

>> It couldn't simply be that I might want to share some of
>> my comparative success with those less fortunate?
>Maybe, but you might be a nice guy. Mr Mean isn't going to give a fuck.

That's up to him. Who am I to tell him any different.

>> >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.
>I assume (from reference to previous posts) that you are unhappy with the
>effectiveness of democracy. Democracy is done by majority which seems to
>be what you're suggesting here. That's what I picked you up on.

There's a big difference between 'unhappy with' and 'despise'. You're
putting words in my mouth again.

>Do you really think the banking industry couldn't survive
>> without government?
>It could now, but if government did not exist before banking, then it wouldn't
>have been pretty.

I disagree. The need to interact commercially is a fairly potent driving
force. I think it would have muddled by.

>> Why don't you go your way and I go mine? (sounds like a song) Wouldn't
>> that be nice.
>Ahah. Now, I talked about this in the Foetal stages of this thread. About
>the setting up of the social contract. Remember? I was told it wouldn't
>work, but I don't see why it can't.

I don't have the early part of the thread to hand, can you remind me
what you said so I can see why I disagreed with you (if indeed it was

>> >> >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.
>This was a serious question, concerning the nature of your state, 'cos I'm
>trying to build up a fairly definitive picture of it. There's no need to
>sound patronising.

I'm sorry if the tone seems patronising but it was nonetheless a serious
answer. We would all work for ourselves, just as we do now.


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

No more random quotes.