Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Thu, 19 Dec 96 10:17:38 GMT

Martin Traynor wrote:

> On 18 Dec 96 at 15:46, wrote:
> > The power hungry, and the greedy cause a threat to the "ordinary"
> > people, and thus to protect themselves, they must form government.
> > Anarchy ends.
> No. To protect themselves they only have to form a power coalition.
> This can have the specific goal of protection from attack *without*
> having anything to do with the governance of the people who form it.

As soon as a group form a coalition, though, they are on the slippery
slope to democracy, IMO.

> BTW, I'm not disputing that there are certain freedoms which it might
> make sense to voluntarily relinquish for certain concessions. For
> example, you and I might sit down and make an agreement between
> ourselves that we will not attack each other. We might sign a contract
> specifying the acceptable limits of intrusion upon each others
> lifestyles and we may employ an agency of some kind to mediate in
> disputes or to take revenge should the pact be broken by one of us.
> This consensual agreement can be extrapolated as far as you'd like to
> take it, with millions of people having the same or similar terms and
> conditions of business with each other and with various enforcement
> agencies backing up these contracts, but it does not constitute
> government.

This is essentially what I mean by Anarchy. It is where the people
agree on various things for their mutual survival, but yet do not
submit to any form of government. This is what I meant by saying that
they need a strong moral system. Then, the contract that you spoke
of above is not necessry, and thus there is no risk of government
being created.

> > > As to your first
> > > point about other peoples well being; I think it's exactly the
> > > opposite. Anarchy is one of the few (only?) systems which doesn't
> > > give a shit whether or not I give a shit about anyone else.
> >
> > If you see above, it's more about taking other people into
> > consideration when carrying out your actions, but you don't have to
> > compromise because of people's instructions or opinions.
> I'm not with you. You seem to be agreeing with me.

Basically, we have the same viewpoint, but you are proposing a contract
idea to preserve harmony, whilst I am saying that Anarchy cannot exist
for long, as this contract will lead to government (IMO!), but without
it, people do not care enough about eachother to make anarchy work.

> > > In the
> > > society we live in, each of us is forced to pay for other peoples
> > > lifestyles.
> >
> > Yeah, fucking students :)
> Funnily enough, as long as I could afford to, paying a certain amount
> of money into financing education is something I *would* do
> voluntarily (provided I was happy that the funds were well managed).

Herein lies the main point. Many governments do not take money, and
say: "This money we're taking is for education", what they say is,
"this money is for the government funded schemes, X amount will go
towards education." It's just part of the package in taxes, and I
agree that they are badly managed. IMO, though, the State should
have other methods to obtain money to subsidise education, and then
reduce taxes, and have people pay towards their childrens (or even
their own) education. It may sound Ultra-Conservative, but it all
balances out (in theory :) in the end.

I believe that education is extremely important, especially as without it
I would not have the cushy office job I've got at the mo ;)

The above statement about students was merely a joke, reflecting the
opinions of a lot of our older generations, who've been paying their
taxes for a long time.

Richard Jones
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."