1997-02-04 - Re: John’s: In anarchy -everyone responsible

Header Data

From: “Attila T. Hun” <attila@primenet.com>
To: John Gilmore <weidai@eskimo.com>
Message Hash: 17132a4f152a814150fca68991b96614b24ed07f0f108830bc1f7b7a31795eca
Message ID: <199702042320.QAA23879@infowest.com>
Reply To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-04 23:20:20 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:20 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Attila T. Hun" <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:20:20 -0800 (PST)
To: John Gilmore <weidai@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
In-Reply-To: <199702041421.GAA27742@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199702042320.QAA23879@infowest.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


on or about 970204:0312 Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com> said:

+   Are mailing lists an example of "public goods" where private 
+   ownership is impossible, or should be avoided? ...

        yes, there is a requirement, even in a libertarian society, let 
    alone an anarchic society, for cooperation in the *commonweal[th]*.

        in otherwords, is there even such a social state as true 
    anarchy? (given the residents of planet earth, I doubt it.)

+   Is the desire for an anarchic community at odds with a desire for 
+   good use of resources?

        the individual desire for anarchy must exclude common human 
    "pride" and greed. true anarchy is poorly defined and understood by 
    most advocates.  

        the absolute need for common resources negates anarchy in the 
    popularly defined "description" of anarchy, solely because the 
    issue of community "responsibility" is in opposition to the 
    perceived: 'I can do anything I want.'

        In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make
    perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_.

on or about 970204:0621 John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> said:

+   In an anarchy, *everyone* is responsible; 
+     nothing is "somebody else's job". 

        Bingo! John's statement is the absolute bottom line!

        e.g.-  if you are walking down the street with thousands of 
    other people and you see a piece of trash (which obviously was 
    tossed by an obviously imperfect anarchist), _you_ pick the trash 
    up and place it in a waste container.  _you_ -not someone else who     
    is shirking _their_ common responsibility.

        anarchy is _not_ living on a desert island surrounded by piles 
    of McDonald's wrappers and empty coke cans. that is an individual 
    who elected to "escape" both society and {him,her}self.

        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....

        John's quote from Booker T. is precisely the point:

            ...now that they were in actual possession of it, freedom 
            was a more serious thing than they had expected to find it.

    or maybe Bobbie McGee: "freedom is just nothing else to lose..."
    (BTW, written by a Rhodes Scholar)

    attila out (for the moment)

Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be