Robin wrote:
>Well, if you think that's anarchy, that might explain some
>of the other things you said about it.
and then defined anarchy as:
>anarchism n. political theory that all government and laws should
be
>abolished.
Before I start ranting let me thank-you for providing the definition and
concede that your definition matches my connotative one ... yes we're
comparing apples and apples.
My point would be the closest the human race has come to anarchy in this
century is during and after revolutions .... specifically the Russian,
Spanish, and Chinese revolutions. Following all three anarchy mutated into
totalitarianism <the difference between Stalinism, Maoism, and Fascism
escapes me ...> . Who said the ultimate source of govt is from the barrel
of a gun? Well, I agree. In terms of memetics I contend that
representative government is as close to anarchy as we can get, since within
anarchy by definition there can be no ORGANIZED resistance towards other
forms of govt. Given the simplicity of totalitarianism it will arise out of
anarchy because it will be the first form of govt. that forms under anarchy.
I'm not saying that one can't imagine a stable anarchist govt ... the best
examples I've come across in fiction are in Bruce Sterling's Schismatrix
stories...John Varley has some cool examples also.
I contend that anarchy is counter to game theory: as long as a large enough
minority can benefit by subjugating a majority, and the magnitude of that
benefit is more than the perceived cost/risk of subjugation then the
minority will attempt the subjugation. A corollary might be: given enough
attempts to overthrow <or in the case of anarchy establish> a government ...
one will succeed. This corollary is based on the premise that the perceived
cost/risk is less than the benefit. {You may see this as an axiom ... and
as an anarchist not accept it. I'll meet you at an agreed upon place to
debate it and then shoot you ... so I contend I win the debate by default.}
Thus, I see one of two conditions being necessary and sufficient for
anarchy. The first being that technology <or nature> provides such an
overwhelming standard of living that each individual has no needs or desires
that can only be obtained collectively. For instance given star-trek
transporters for getting around and satisfying my material goods and
star-trek dilithium crystals to provide essentially infinite and free energy
then I agree the start-trek federation could pretty much kiss my ass. The
other condition would be that every individual has the power to over-throw
the govt ... say a hydrogen bomb complete with unstoppable delivery
mechanism. Given that then the cost of establishing a govt. would far
outweigh the individual benefit. Perhaps people who are bigger science
fiction fans than I could come up with other conditions under which anarchy
SEEMS tenable. Bottom line though ... I don't see those conditions in place
now.
I will agree that anarchy is the ideal form of government ... but will not
agree that the ideal is achievable except under artificial conditions ...
and for periods of time less than a life time. Should you have counter
examples please provide them ....
Nate
----------