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?