ip: Chaos Theory

[auto110413 at hushmail.com]

So this is interesting, but you do understand that from a strictly logical 
perspective it's completely inconsistent and makes no sense whatsoever??

Mr. Murphy complains that Gaza does not meet this "requirements" for being 
an anarchy - I would then respectully ask "what does???".. If Gaza is not 
anarchy, has there EVER been an anarchy in all of recorded history? The 
"State," as a structure of social organization, exists even in communities 
of animals that are of substantial sub-human intelligence (e.g., wolf packs,
 lion prides, dophins, ants, most primates and most other social, intelligent 
animals all exhibit some form of "pecking order" that can loosely be interpreted 
to be power structures that self-organized out of "random chaos" (so to 
speak) so as to further the chances of survival for the species as a whole..) 
human governments are very similar, except they attempt to inject some degree 
of "civil procedures" into this otherwise life/death Darwinian drama..

If Mr. Murphy seeks a system where people own property and where other people 
respect this property, then what exactly, I ask, is wrong w/ Northern California?? 
Defining anarchy to be such a system (where people own property and other 
people respect this property) is a complete and total breakdown of all logical,
 rational reasoning..

I hope you also understand that from the perspective of a business man, 
perhaps the most important role that governments provide is not necessarily 
"an organized system of corrupt thugs to whom we pay protection money in 
the form of taxes" (to paragraph Mr. Murphy's arguments); instead, government 
most importantly provides business with an institution upon which businesses 
may pass on risk (if necessary)..

ALL business is about minimizing risk, and the more that businesses are 
able to pass on risk to government (the "State", so to speak), the happier 
they are.. You need look no further than the DoD bailout of Iridium to see 
what I mean.. (there are MANY other such examples too..)

If Mr. Murphy believes that it is possible to run a business absent government 
(i.e., in an anarchy), I suggest he quit the pot-smoking grad school scene,
 get a REAL job (preferabbly in Northern California) and see firsthand how 
the world REALLY works.. (perhaps AFTER he spends several months in Russia,
 so he can compare and constrast..)

the word "anarcho-capitalist" has no reality for me.. nor should it for 
any rational, sane human being.. its substantially less than an oxymoron 
and makes NO SENSE whatsoever.. if you want to live in a world that sustains 
"anarchy-capitalism", you may as well live in a world where two people can 
eat the same piece of pizza or a person has the freedom to jump over the 
Moon (to cite examples from the article)

>
>A nice rant, below, from a fellow anarcho-capitalist lapsed conservative
>apparently Hillsdale College grad.
>
>[I swear, folks, I *tried* snipping this to relevant bits. :-). I mean,
>there's a URL in it and all, and, admittedly, he's preaching to the 
>choir
>around here, but this is nicely done that I couldn't bring myself to
>premasticate it for cypherpunk consumption.]
>
>Cheers,
>RAH
>
>
>
>--- begin forwarded text
>
>
>Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 20:35:04 -0600
>To: believer at telepath.com
>From: "S. Hunter" <quailrun at centex.net> (by way of believer at telepath.com)
>Subject: ip: Chaos Theory
>
>
>http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy19.html
>
>Chaos Theory
>
>by <mailto:robert_p_murphy at yahoo.com>Bob Murphy
>
>Throughout history, there have been countless arguments advanced to 
>support
>the State. None of them has been valid. This essay will address a certain
>class of these arguments, whose sleight-of-hand consists in a definitional
>trick. My purpose here is not to make the positive case for pure
>laissez-faire, but merely to show that each pro-government argument 
>is a
>non sequitur.
>
>Anarchy is the absence of government, both in political science and
>everyday usage (it is the first definition given by Websters, e.g.).
>Chaos, in the context of social science, refers to lawlessness, or the
>absence of a relative degree of regularity in human affairs. (I say 
>a
>"relative degree" because, obviously, virtually all humans will always 
>obey
>the rule of, e.g., avoiding someone with leprosy or not slaughtering
>every female in sight. The laws to which lawlessness is opposed are
>generally meant to imply the sometimes irksome rules necessary for a 
>civil
>society.)
>
>[...]