Brian wrote:
>A hierarchical structure of violence (the military and the
>police/prison system) allows a minority (generally the rich) to
>terroristically impose their ideology on the majority. In the
>absence of such hierarchical violence (i.e., in an anarchy) no
>minority has the MEANS to terroristically impose themselves on the
>rest. So then we must find other, nonviolent means of reaching
>agreements, compromises, etc., between differing groups.
This sounds like sense, but it isn't. In an anarchy where no one has the
ability to prevent individual actors from causing harm to others, there will be
a war of all against all. I would suggest that in an anarchy *everyone* has
the MEANS to terroristically impose themselves on the rest. Might wins out.
Suppose that a company is polluting the local river so that no one has safe
drinking water. Without the state, how are you going to make someone behave
in the best interests of the community? Who is going to stop them?
There is a difference between the minimal state that can be justified by group
concerns of security, peace, and environmental protection, and the intrusive
state we see today. It seems contradictory to argue for environmental
protection and for no government to back it up. Do you really advocate doing
away with police, prisons, regulations, etc., or do you merely hope in a
utopian way that someday these institutions won't be necessary? What would
happpen in an anarchist world when some company or person takes actions that
will cause an animal species to become extinct, or otherwise engages in
unnecessary cruelty to animals? What if their activities threaten the rest of
us with illness and death? How, do you propose, does the anarchist society
deal with such problems?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 10:24:51 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:27:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re:post)election...
To: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Challenge: name one positive thing the government does that the
> people could not do better themselves ...
No problem, Brian:
1. Fight wars
2. Collect taxes
3. Alleviate crises in capitalism
4. Maintain privilege
5. Deliver mail (joke)
At the same time, I must stress that I think we are a LONG way
from being prepared for anarchism. We lack the necessary 'parallel
structures' needed to get things done (i.e. justice) and -- perhaps more
importantly -- we lack the social & cultural understanding needed for change.
IMHO....joel
