Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> said: + Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for + good use of resources?
Actually, it is quite possible that an "anarchic community" is _more_ efficient in the use of resources than some sort of organized community. It is explained, for example, that the reason there are so many different kinds of life on earth is that there are so many ecological niches to fill.
In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_.
I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and "dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of _orders_."
anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics....
No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a number of citizens. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on or about 970204:2343 jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_. +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. +Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. It is the lack of +_orders_." disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility. +> anarchy is only possible in an ideal world where _everyone_ +> assumes not only responsibility for themselves, but for the common +> good. no malice, no greed, no need for assassination politics.... +No, that's traditional thinking and that's wrong. See AP part 8. +Freud believed (as "everyone" else believed, even myself, before AP) +that anarchy was inherently unstable. But it ISN'T, if the tools of +AP are used to stabilize it. And no, no altruism is necessary for AP +to work as well; no individuals are being asked to sacrifice +themselves for the common good. Rather, they are given the +opportunity to work to achieve a reward offered, cumulatively, by a +number of citizens. aah, but that is the difference between a _pure_ anarchy and a _popular_ anarchy. A pure _anarchy_ is sufficiently idealistic in that _noone_ lacks the necessary resonsibility to keep society moving, each individual in their own niche. As long as there is perfect responsibility in a perfect anarchy, then there is no need for AP. AP is a negative, or _punative_, influence; I might liken it to the Catholic Church which is a religion of fear, and an instrument of political control. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBMvixAL04kQrCC2kFAQECsQQAlPSQRpEE2dAKkqrWSlPf79QhSBtYbjXa rEyAlOrmi8NOxgyb8hGF/VwVkURUKnPr4gGJW9JvwuPB2x/AQeT11ZEQyVqeFGNF 0W6WR7yv3XsOT9UM6JCP9hFLWU33BumcPd26w8f/Z5mx87qEUoXeJD4ApLv5QNI3 WlyL0xDT1PM= =sfD3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attila T. Hun wrote:
on or about 970204:2343 jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_.
+I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. +It is the lack of _orders_."
disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility.
I don't know where these implications come from. Start with a primitive example, such as animals in the wild. Is that a perfect anarchy? Where do the differences come in for humans? Are they neo-religious perceptions, which could never find universal agreement? Or are they set in stone, in immutable, universal laws?
participants (3)
-
Attila T. Hun -
Dale Thorn -
jim bell