Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Fri, 20 Dec 96 16:18:28 GMT

> > 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.

Yep. Minature societies, leading to government.

> The more people who share a common goal, the bigger
> that coalition will be and the more chance it has of success.

The more chance it has of becoming a society.

> The strong moral system you mention won't happen.
> There will always be those who cause conflict,

That is exactly why I don't believe anarchy can ever exist for long
periods of time. The ones who go against the rest of the people,
and make themselves a danger to others will cause society to
form an alliance against him/them. Again, once an alliance is formed,
government follows.

Let me back up what I'm saying here with a trivial example. I have a
reasonably large group of friends, and when we all go out at the weekend,
there is somewhere in the region of 20 - 40 of us. We are all individuals,
within out own little society. We all do what we want - to a point. There
is a stage that we have now reached, where the organisation of what
we do is done by a few people (myself included) only. Essentially, we
dictate what the other do. This is primarily due to the fact that
if we didn't arange things, we'd never ever do anything :) But you
see how it's evolved....

> 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.

Sorry, disagree.

> 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
> democracy.

I don't think democracy can be described as an experiment. I think if
any society were left alone, isolated from humanity, then democracy
would always be the ultimate end of all political ideology.

> 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.

That's an interesting point. I'd still disagree, though, 'cos
it would be unpreferable (to me, at least) to live in a society
where I am under constant threat.

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