>>That's some good bit o' history.
> It was you who asked the question "Without a State, would we have
> electronics? Radio?"
>Yes and I was being serious. I hadn't encounted that history
And you probably haven't encountered the history of most scientific and technological development. Leading your your obvious error in thinking that "The State" had much to do with it, even today. And certainly not before most of the 1900's.
>> I was really referring to the level
> of existing order needed to create *more* levels of order.
> That sounds like gobbledygook to me. What do you mean by this? What is a
> "level of order"?
>It's not gobbledygook at all. Just as single-cellular life gave rise
to multi-cellular life, a new LEVEL of order was made beyond the cell.
In this sense, you could say all the problems that we've been having
with "the State" are birthing pains bringing about the solutions to
solve this endless conflict at the current level.
No, I disagree that "all the problems we've been having with the State are birthing pains...". And some pains lead to death, not birth.
>It's not that government is the driver, it is simply a large force
that can assemble huge amounts of resources and human effort to solve
problems.
The vast majority of "problems" have not, and do not, require government to 'assemble huge amounts of resources and human effort" to solve. And if anything, government merely by existing wastes huge amounts of resources, impeding the actual development of solutions. If anything, the free market is far more able to identify and solve problems, if allowed to work properly.
> You would never get equivalent levels of order in an anarchic situation.
"Anarchy" means "no government". It does not mean "no order". And certainly it doesn't mean "no voluntary order".
"Indeed, one common theme I've seen in criticisms of my idea is the fear that this system would lead to "anarchy." The funny thing about this objection is that, technically, this could easily be true. But "anarchy" in real life may not resemble anything like the "anarchy" these people claim to fear, which leads me to respond with a quote whose origin I don't quite remember: "Anarchy is not lack of order. Anarchy is lack of ORDERS.""
[end of quote]
Google search that, and you will find occasionally find references to me. But I don't claim to have initiated the idea; quite the contrary.
Jim Bell