From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 5639d82ac7459d4008f849681464b4322377da275190e0ebc3df238e24ec7e0b
Message ID: <19970514112959.12839@bywater.songbird.com>
Reply To: <19970513230543.60364@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-14 18:57:51 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 02:57:51 +0800
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 02:57:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
In-Reply-To: <19970513230543.60364@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <19970514112959.12839@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 04:03:57PM +0000, Paul Bradley wrote:
>>> Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
>>> Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> No, there is a distinct and marked difference between the absence of
> government and the presence of lots of different governments, the reason
> for war in Rwanda is because there are a number of rival factions all
> competing to gain power, a true anarchy has no government whatsoever.
> Rwanda is an example of undecided government, not no government.
Roving bands of thugs are not the same as an "undecided government".
>> "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in
>> lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary
>>
>> Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?
>
> The entire first definition, there is no absense of government in Rwanda,
> merely a number of different prospective government.
Your sentence is an oxymoron, a self contradiction. A "number of
different prospective governments" are *not* the same as "a
government". Claiming to be a government is not the same as being a
government.
> Also, the definition of anarchy is flawed in that it suggests that the
> word refers to the lack of government leading to lawlessness, my
> definition, and I would imagine the definition of most members of this
> list, is that anarchy is the absense of government period. Just because
> the law we refer to doesn`t suit you does not mean it is not a valid system.
You are free to use the word anarchy to refer to asparagus if you
wish. However, the meaning I used is *the* common English meaning.
> > In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for
> > obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't
> > consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs.
>
> Cite?
Cite what? The obvious correlation that you agree to below? Or do you
think I need to do find a study that shows that intelligent people
don't consider an anarchical situation such as the Rwandan collapse a
desirable situation?
> The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious, if
> you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness" you
> are obviously going to see a correlation between this and lawlessness!
That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
standard, reputable dictionary. I realize that you have your own
private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and
an esoteric community. However, I am not a member of that community,
so I use the standard meaning.
> I could counter argue that the correlation between government and war is
> irrefutably stronger but then I would be playing your little game, and I
> don`t want to get drawn into that.
Of course there is a correlation between government and war. There is
a correlation between people and war, between use of guns and war (so
clearly we could eliminate war by eliminating guns), economics and
war, etc etc. Correlation is not causation.
> Your comment that most intelligent people consider that anarchy is not a
> desirable state of affairs does not even deserve comment, democratic
> arguments for or against anarchy are completely irrelevant and futile.
Gosh, I thought you weren't going to comment...
Of course, democratic arguments for or against dictatorship are
completely irrelevant and futile, as well. Just out of curiosity,
what the heck is a "democratic argument", anyway?
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Return to May 1997
Return to ““Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>”