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

Martz (
Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:06:11 +0000

On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, wrote:

>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's why I disagreed. I don't see any need for anyone to go anywhere
in the normal course of events. You live your life and I'll live mine.
When dealing with individuals who present a physical threat then it's a
different matter and they may need to be constrained in some manner or
driven away.

>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.

As I've said, I'd rather we drop the term completely. Far too much


Self and voluntary.

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

Shall we replace 'state' with 'parties'. That would cover both
individuals and groups and wouldn't tie us unnecessarily to geography
(you may be trying to deal with a distributed organisation).

>Rights exist purely between contracting parties.


>Other individuals outside
>the contract have natural rights only WRT to the association.

Not sure what you mean by this but I don't think it's necessary anyway.
You said it all in the first sentence.

>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

This is misleading. I could contract as many rights to you as I liked
and ask for nothing in return (hardly likely, but possible).

>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

Unless they have assigned those rights to that body.

>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.

I don't think so. It would make life easier but I don't think it's
necessary. Unless you consider MAD to be a moral structure.


The term is unnecassary.

>There are no armed forces run by
>the state.

There's that state word again. You defined it above as a geographical
location defined by a landowners boundaries. In that sense then of
course there would be an armed I suspect what you really
mean here though is not geographical location but govt. See what I mean
about interchanging the definitions?

>The only form of defence would come in the existance of a number
>of privately run companies providing protection and retribution for injuries

And of course self-defense.

>There is no Judiciary.

Except that which is agreed. For example, say you and I want to do
business with each other. We draw up a contract which we both find
acceptable but we also write into that contract who should arbitrate in
cases of dispute and who should enforce the arbiters decision. This is
already practiced in the business world but the arbiter usually has to
register his decision with the govt. in order to have it ratified and as
far as I know the govt. reserves the right of enforcement for itself.

>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.

What power?

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

It's extremely basic. This is not a criticism of you, in fact it's more
to do with the piecemeal manner in which I've presented my thoughts.
There's a lot more that could be added but I believe most of it can be
extrapolated from what I've already said.

An aside. This has turned into a two-way conversation and has reached a
depth that I'm not sure is particularly in fitting with CoV. Would
anyone like us to take this off-list?


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

No more random quotes.