Forwarded message:

Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:43:40 -0500 From: Petro <petro@playboy.com> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)

Anarchy is usually defined as the absense of government. What exactly makes up a "government", what are it's defining characteristics?

Well let's see.... control over some geographic area arbitration of conflict tithe from the inhabitants of that area regulation of economic systems by controlling the medium of trade (ie money)

Simply a device for reallocating wealth?--Insufficient, there are lots of mechanisms for that.

No, government control economies that's not the same thing as having re-allocation of wealth as a goal. That's more a responsbility of a business than a government. Governments, at least in principle, are concerned with stable economies and the continued existance of same. Who exactly, if anyone, is holder of that wealth is in principle irrelevant to the definition of political systems as a general expression of human psychology. Though it is clear the devil is in the details.

A body that lays down standards and rules of conduct?--Sounds like a church or industry consortium to me.

It sounds like an expression of the social aspects of human psychology. Whether it's a church, industry consortium, local LEA, local fire dept., etc.

A heirarchical (sp?) structure that uses fear, propaganda and force to reallocate wealth, enforce standards and rules of conduct, and other things at whim (for varying values of "whim", from the "whim" of a dictator, to the "whim" of the "body politic").

Who cares whether it's heirarchical or flat (as in an anarchy or free-market). The point is that abuse takes place. It is no more ethical to bash somebodies brains in under an anarchy than it is in a democracy or a communicsm.

Now, THAT is a government. Yes, some of what it enforces is probably a good idea (i.e. everyone driving on the same side of the road, &etc) some if it is kinda silly (don't smoke dope, or you're going to jail (Here, have a beer)), and some of it is downright stupid and shortsighted (encryption policy, not drinking beer out of a bucket on the sidewalk).

Sounds like an expression of the range of human beliefs. Whether something is right, wrong, stupid, etc. is a function of individual statements of importance and ranking of consequences.

Anarchy is not having to be effected by that, being "free" to follow what one thinks is right.

Which unfortunately includes the neighbor being able to take your property by force since he believes it's right.

How one gets to that state is not really relevent.

Tell that to the mother of the kid who got killed last night because he had something somebody else wanted. Also explain to here how under an anarchy there isn't any recourse for her other than to try to find that person herself and kill them.... Yep, that is a very efficient and ethical system you wanna build. My statement above simply lays out the position having Privacy

(for large enough values of privacy to be meaningful) and Freedom (for large enough values of Freedom to be meaningful) one is effectively in an anarchistic state. That is what "close enough to be meaningful" meant.

Freedom is the right to do what you want *WITHOUT* impinging or otherwise limiting others right to express their desires and wants. Anarchy clearly won't do that.

Privacy is (at least it's my understanding) the ability to hide or mask information in such a way that only people you wish to have access to it do.

If privacy exists you don't have to hide things because nobodies looking in the first place. You only need to hide things if you're reasonably certain somebody else wants it.

There are varying degrees of Privacy, from "Well, at least they

Yep, like there are varying degrees of pregnancy. Either somebody is looking or they aren't.

don't analyize what's in my feeces, even if they do watch me take it" to being able to completely hide any information at all from anyone.

No, that is varying degrees of *respect* for privacy. Not the same animal at all.

Freedom is the ability to make choices, and exercise those choices.

Without impinging on others freedom. It's worth noting that anarchist don't add that last one in there because it blows their whole little house of cards completely away.

Just like privacy, there are varying degrees of freedom, from the convict who can chose wheter he/she wants to eat that slop or go hungry, to the president of the US who can (apparently) bomb people with impunity, lie under oath & etc.

No, there are varying degrees of respect for freedom.

When the amount of freedom and privacy is high enough, it is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Sure it is, because under anarchy there is no protection that one persons expression won't interfere with anothers expression without resorting to violence. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------