Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Fri, 17 Jan 97 15:36:26 GMT

Martin Traynor wrote:

> [I wrote:]
> >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
> baggage.

Ok, we can use a different term if you wish. I can't think of a suitable
replacement, because I've come to understant the State as being continuous, no
matter what the political situation. Whether you are one man on your own land
or a billion people under one regime, you live under a state.

> >
> >None.
> 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'.

See my above explanation as to why we shouldn't drop the term "state". If you
so wish, though, I'll try and remember to use "parties" instead.

> >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.

Natural rights are intrinsic to all individuals, when anarchy is the format of
society (if I can phrase it that way). Natural rights are traded in when
society is formed, but a party, and an individual are leveled when the
individual has no connection to the party, and they exist, essentially,
within an anarchy. Therefore, natural rights only exist between them.

Incidental, I suppose, but I think that pointing it out is reasonably

> >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

Then you gain nothing from the contract. Where's the point.

> (hardly likely, but possible).


> >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.

I was hoping to tidy this up a little, as I can see a state (and in this case
I'm talking about a situation) of total chaos and violence, culminating in
lots of mini wars, because people are killing off those who get on their
nerves, and family and friends are reaping retribution for that and ....
vicious circle, until everyone'd dead.

> Unless you consider MAD to be a moral structure.

Weren't they the bad guys in Inspector Gadget?

> 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.

Right, and you don't run any armed forces. You contract out.

> In that sense then of
> course there would be an armed

But you've only got 2 :)

> >The only form of defence would come in the existance of a number
> >of privately run companies providing protection and retribution for injuries
> >caused.
> And of course self-defense.

But the way I understood, you wouldn't need self-defence, as you've got all;
these heavies defending you anyway.

> >
> >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.

OK, that sounds good.

> >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?

The power that you have by hiring out a protection company to stop people
bothering you. If you prevent them from doing what they will, by blocking
their actions on the grounds that it affects you, then you have exercised
power over someone.

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

And was intended to be. I could go into huge ammounts of detail, but that
would involve some serious collaboration and work between us, and apart
from anything else, I havn't the time.