From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:26:12 -0800 (PST)
To: "Attila T. Hun" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible
Message-ID: <199702051526.HAA28775@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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