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

Header Data

From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Message Hash: f68011703f084d7d54968bdd44ca22b282d1ac8de66d37d5defbafaa7e4ddea5
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970514155545.1932C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Reply To: <19970513230543.60364@bywater.songbird.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-14 17:48:14 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:48:14 +0800

Raw message

From: Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:48:14 +0800
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Subject: Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
In-Reply-To: <19970513230543.60364@bywater.songbird.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970514155545.1932C-100000@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> > 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.

> "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.

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.

> 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. 


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!
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.

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.

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