Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Thu, 16 Jan 97 10:03:29 GMT

Martin Traynor wrote:

> >> 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
> I).

I was talking about the very first social contract, as proposed by Jean-Jaques
Rousseau, in which a society is set up by unanimity. If someone disagrees with
the setting up of that particular society, then they go their own way.

That is a highly abbriged version, BTW.

OK, I know that we're just getting into petty arguments now about this thread,
and runnig round and round in circles. If you're interested, Martin, then
here is something a little more fucussed, which I'm talking from the course
of these posts. Any changes you want to propose, or corrections, or where
I've misunderstood you, just point out.


A geographical location, but defined only by the land owner's boundaries.



Only form of control is by contractual agreements with other "States", in
one's own interest.


Rights exist purely between contracting parties. Other individuals outside
the contract have natural rights only WRT to the association.

All parties give up certain freedoms to the others within a contract, in return
for protection of other forms of freedoms, and rights.

One cannot have Rights without Obligation


All are as free as they wish to be, but there is no gaurantee of equality.
Monetary gain, and assets are the business of individuals only, and no
outside body regualtes them


Law do not exist in their current form. Again, they are all down to contractual
agreements between parties. A moral structure would have to be in place, to
prevent violation of individuals in a way which would adversely affect them,
and thus trigger retribution.


The people themselves are the executive. There are no armed forces run by
the state. The only form of defence would come in the existance of a number
of privately run companies providing protection and retribution for injuries


There is no Judiciary. All retribution is carried out on the back of the
individual who has been wronged. Again, the moral code must prevail to
prevent the abuse of power.

That's a baisc summary of what I believe you are proposing. Please add
anything that you feel is necessary.