Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)

Martz (
Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:51:23 +0000

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, wrote:
>M.Traynor Wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, wrote:
>> >I'd go with that. We seem to be moving closer to an agreed definition.
>> >All I've been driving at is that it cannot last long without degenerating
>> >into some form of society.
>> I wouldn't call that degeneration.
>I used the word "degeneration" purely because if Anarchy is the aim, and thus
>the "higher" then any deviation from that means that the object has not been
>attained, and thus the "higher" "degenerates" (appologies for the excessive use
>of "quotes" :)

But I don't think society is a deviation from anarchy. Your definition
of anarchy seems to preclude any kind of order, mine does not. Anarchy,
as you are using the term, won't supply the stable yet dynamic society
that you seek. I have no argument with that and I'd like to untangle
myself from the impression that I do. Ideally I'd offer another term to
describe what I'm trying to outline but nothing springs to mind as being
more suitable. How about if you do a mental search-and-replace on our
discussion and everytime I use the word 'anarchy', switch it for
something which carries less baggage for you.

>> Quite the reverse in fact. I think a
>> stable society *would* evolve, that's the point I'm trying to make here.
>> It just needn't be one based around coercion.
>The qQuestiong, therefore, is: How would such a society (state?) evolve.
>That's what I think we need to look at.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say it *would* evolve. It is one of a
number of possibilities.


For my public key, <> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.

No more random quotes.