From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 02:58:16 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
In-Reply-To: <19970514112959.12839@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970515183505.3061A-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




> > 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".

Roving bands of thugs are called LEAs.

Flippant comments aside your comment above is almost entirely without 
substance, and what little substance it does have is simply not true.
Roving bands of thugs are, of course, the same as undecided government, 
any faction competing for power will use unethical means to obtain it, as 
the desire to gain power is immoral in itself.

> >> "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. 

Quite so, but this is not my point, my point is that Rwanda is not an 
anarchy in the normal sense, it is chaos. This might be a dictionary 
definition that does not make it a real definition, I will not argue 
semantics with you anyway, you know what I mean by anarchy, if it makes 
you happy read "absence of any government" for anarchy, anarchy is not 
chaos, regardless of what the dictionary might say.

> > 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.  

Not at all, the original meaning is derived from the latin, "an-archy", 
the absence of an "arch" where arch is taken to mean a higher level, eg. 
a government.

The common meaning is, as you say, used to refer to chaos and lawless 
disorder, this has developed in much the same way as for example the word 
"gay" once refered to being happy, and is now more commonly used to mean 
homosexual.

Your bastardised definition is wrong, plain and simple, you know what I 
mean by anarchy, it`s irrelevant really anyway, we are arguing about 
whether anarchic society can be stable, rather than the specific meaning 
of the word anarchy.

> > > 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?

No cite examples of the correlation between my definition of anarchy, ie. 
no government, and war.

> > 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.

No, you use an incorrect meaning that has developed due to commonly held 
misconceptions about the "need" for government. 

Anyway, whether your definition is the correct one or not, the point is 
if you define anarchy as lack of government leading to lawlesness you 
will clearly see a link between this and lawlessness! - you cannot just 
define your views into the meaning of a word!

> > 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. 

Of course, but this is all beside the point, the evil of government is 
not that it kills or makes war, it is that it infringes the rights of 
citizens by assuming a position of superiority over them.


> > 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...

I didn`t comment, I made an observation about the general case and not 
your specific statement.

> 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?

I would say you attempt to justify your position that anarchy is not 
desirable by stating that most intelligent people feel the same is a 
democratic argument.

This is clearly a democratic argument as it assumes that an idea without 
merit suddenly assumes merit if it is supported by a large proportion of 
the population or some subset thereof.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"