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

> 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.  

     Good does not necessarily mean efficient, and efficient does not
necessarily mean good. 

    Picture--if you can--the "perfect" centrally planned economy where all
possible market conditions, wants and needs are taken into account. Factories
are placed optimally for access to natural resources and distribution to 
consumers etc. Also assume that the people running this society _are_ intersted
in efficient production methods, and activly look for new and better ways of 
getting things done--benign facism/socialism if you will. This would (assuming 
perfect people, but bear with me) be the _most efficient_ method of producing 
and delivering goods, but it would introduce certain "choke points", one 
natural disaster or war could cripple production of necessary items. 

    Picture anarchy, massively redundant, and resistent to this problem, while
probably not anywhere _near_ as efficient, this "system" would have the ability
to absorb damage and adapt more rapidly to changing enviroments. 

> 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 

     Stable is a relative thing. Are things stable now? If you think so, you
either aren't looking very hard, or you are giving "stable" a wide range.