Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change

Martin Traynor (
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:20:38 +0000


On 19 Dec 96 at 10:17, wrote:

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

Maybe. But it's a democracy of consent.

> 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.

No. You're talking about 'the' people. I'm just talking about 'some'
people. I'll get together with a bunch of like-minded individuals and
we'll protect our common interests, you'll do the same with a bunch
of other people. The more people who share a common goal, the bigger
that coalition will be and the more chance it has of success. For
each thing of importance to me, I will seek out those who can help

> 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.

The contract I spoke of (as an example only, it is not an example of
a social contract which everyone has to sign for this to work, it is
just one kind of alliance which might form) is only as necessary as
it is desirable. The strong moral system you mention won't happen.
There will always be those who cause conflict, the contract is just a
means of protecting ourselves from them.

> Basically, we have the same viewpoint, but you are proposing a contract
> idea to preserve harmony

No, I'm most definitely not doing that. I've stayed away from the
whole idea of harmony. I have no desire to preserve it, in fact I
doubt that it can exist in the terms you seem to have been using it.
I am proposing a social structure which is based around transactions
between individuals. Not to preserve (?it must exist before it can be
preserved - do *you* see much of it?) harmony, nor to create it,
simply to create a framework within which individuals can thrive or
fail on their own merits.

>, whilst I am saying that Anarchy cannot exist
> for long, as this contract will lead to government (IMO!)

You could be right, I don't know. What I do know is that all the
systems we've tried so far have failed (IMO) and this is one which
(again IMO) has a chance. As far as I'm concerned it's time to draw a
line under the whole democracy thing, say 'failed experiment' and
start again with something else. It'll never happen that way of
course, as the people who are in a position to do exactly that are
the people who gain the most by perpetuating the experiment we call

> but without
> it, people do not care enough about eachother to make anarchy work.

They don't need to. They don't even need to care about themselves
(although that helps). In fact, thinking about it, people caring
about each other is possibly the one thing that would make anarchy
fail, for *that* is where government comes from; a 'mother knows
best' attitude gone mad.

> 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.

and constitute theft (by definition).

> 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.

IMO they should piss off and leave us alone.

Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later.


Martz <>
For my PGP key, email me with 'Send public key' as subject
an automated reply will follow

There is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking. John Galt