Hope this isn't off topic ("immigration" / "anarchism"?), but I
was just thinking.
Since technically anarchism (by the NAP ["good"?] definition /
"anarcho-capitalism"?), cannot enFORCE itself (or be enforced) in
societal terms, it can not ever have been "installed" or
"legislated" or "employed" or "practiced" universally (as a
system) by any large group of people anywhere. That's my comment
on the world history of anarchism.
But its history also seems to suggest something similar about its
future. In terms of a formal political system, it doesn't seem
logical - as "formal" and "political" implies universal
enforcement. It doesn't seem like it can ever be anything more
than individual decisions and informal agreements.
It's a conundrum: How do you outlaw law? Or the inverse: How do
you force non-force?
Of course that doesn't necessarily say anything negative about
its ethical merits. Nor does it say anything negative about the
eventual possibility of all individuals making those decisions
and agreements. I suspect that, as history has shown, technology
will further the autonomy of the individual and therefore the
feasibility of good anarchy. Technology has always been the
underestimated factor in the development of civilization and
individualism. But it still begs the question: At what
theoretical point do you, as a society, officially have
anarchism? What if 999 out of 1000 members of a society make the
informal agreement to observe the NAP, to the extent of
eliminating govt?
Does the one dissenter/aggressor disqualify the label? Or even
more analytical: What if all 1000 agreed, but then a violation
occurred? At that point in time, is the anarchy dissolved.
I'm not sure whether I am trying to restrict the definition of
anarchy down to near absolute zero, or I am just trying to define
it for myself. TLP, I'm sure you, and others, can comment.
Thanks.
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> How about every attempt at anarchy that has ever been made
during the
> entire history of the planet earth? Is that good enough for
you?
> This of course includes the non-anarchy in iceland that
anarchists
> claim was a paradise, and it includes more recent examples of
> oppression, chaos, murder, rape, theft, and warlords fighting
each
> other to control people like Somalia.
Be specific. Which attempts?
Iceland had statist elements that caused it to fail. That is an
established fact. The very things you wish to include in the
interactions between humans caused an almost ideal situation to
sour and become authoritarian.
Somalia - you defined it yourself. "oppression, chaos, murder,
rape, theft, and warlords fighting each other to control people
like Somalia." Therefore not in keeping with anyone's definition
of an Anarchy. Except for the one that you and you alone use.
No matter what you say, no many how many times you repeat the
lie, a Anarchy is not what you say it is. It is exactly peaceful
voluntary cooperation between people.
BWS
BWS
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
