1997-05-14 - Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials….

Header Data

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

Raw message

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

> 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