On 18 Dec 96 at 11:29, jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.sl wrote:
> In the end, all forms of human existence, whether anarchic or totalitarian
> will have some form of self-government. To live in aboslute anarchy is
> to live isolated from others so that group decisions never have to be
> made. As soon as someone suggests "lets put it to the vote", anarchy ceases
> to exist, and democracy takes over.
Not true. Democracy can exist within anarchy, provided it is a
concensual democracy rather than the enforced kind we have now.
The above scenario is a fine example of why anarchy can be more
stable than democracy; group decisions are fine, just don't expect to
try to apply them to people who *aren't* part of the group without
meeting some resistance. Enforced democracy can be stated as 'if you
ain't in the majority, tough shit' (in most implementations of
'democracy' you can actually be in the *majority* and it's still
tough shit), whereas consensual democracy is more a 'if you ain't in
the majority, you can always leave and join another group'.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later.
iQCVAwUBMrfzE15rBERarcK9AQFZfAP/RRjWGEng4giaQNRp7WnxrJWHFyYwnapo
JHi99AQCPv7TwB6AN29zehYWoQ7SqeHE515GB4JW9dOuV4/iGj6u3GKf+Rmw49QC
NybaIRLmzl1qUZ6NZYqWVCq4BGVzalcU6Gv7W/bfa+OAuDNqGCukb6YKLMt+IqUJ
eCZlSZK1biA=
=4Xdh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Martz <m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> For my PGP key, email me with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will followGod gave us the internet so we could have a forum for the discussion of theology where we couldn't get in fistfights. John Crooks