1997-05-15 - Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials….

Header Data

From: Tom Allard <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ae7aa3706123c6e43903d03b4d2d7db29e4b22827260eceea9b629a7e210bb77
Message ID: <199705151347.JAA18147@bksmp2.FRB.GOV>
Reply To: <19970514142758.42227@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-15 14:18:24 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:18:24 +0800

Raw message

From: Tom Allard <m1tca00@FRB.GOV>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 22:18:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
In-Reply-To: <19970514142758.42227@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <199705151347.JAA18147@bksmp2.FRB.GOV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Kent wrote:
> >   anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
> >   2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion
> > 
> > Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".
> Note the second definition.

So, in other words, you agree with Tim about your definition of Rawanda as 
an example of anarchy:

Tim 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.

The topic at hand was "Do governments kill more than individuals?".
Bringing Rawanda up as a counter-example to government and calling it an
anarchy is kind of dishonest, don't you think?  In the context of THIS
discussion, "anarchy" can only be the first definition, "no government".
Rawanda is not an anarchy in the sense of "no government," it's simply an
anarchy in the sense that the government is in disorder.  One faction of
government is fighting for control of government over another.

We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by government.

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D