From: "Attila T. Hun" <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:06:39 -0800 (PST)
To: jim bell <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
Message-ID: <199702051706.JAA01075@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----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-----