Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:31:05 -0600 (CST)

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 wrote:


> > 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....

I have the impression that Drakir and Traynor are using different
definitions for "anarchy".

I agree with Drakir that the total absence of government is unstable.
However, what I'm abstracting from Traynor is that "anarchy" is *not* the
total absence of government.

I'm abstracting this: "anarchy" is a governmental form that doesn't have
marked cutpoints. There probably are several governmental forms without
marked cutpoints, but there has been so little exploration/
experimentation with these modes that they are all called "anarchy".

[By analogy, it would be ludicrous to compare feudal monarchy with a
military dictatorship.]


> > 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.

I'd like to see someone who isn't acculturated to a democracy [this
includes being native to one, but goes beyond....] be utterly convinced
of this.

It could be that too fast a transition forces "failed experiment".
Democracy in the U.S. has undergone *radical* changes over two+
centuries. The version in 1800 is properly an oligarchy, by 1990's

> > 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.

But the government *is* a constant threat ;)

/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd