--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The key point is that "anarchy" only works among members of species
that 
> operate only as unorganized individuals. As they develop the ability or 
> tendency to organize into cooperative groups that operate according to 
> coordinated, joint strategies, everything changes. Then groups of 
> individually weaker individuals can combine to overcome the strongest 
> individual, unless that individual also organizes a group around >him. 

The company that I work for is a "cooperative group that operates
according to coordinated, joint strategies", and it competes with
other such groups on a daily basis. Why is there no violent gang
warfare between us? Could it be that civility persists because
companies are VOLUNTARY cooperatives instead of COERCIVE protection
rackets? 


>  From competition among individuals the species transitions into 
> competition among groups.
> 
> Our brains certainly don't free us from natural law. They only allow us 
> to develop tools to intensify the group rivalries.

That's funny: my brain has developed tools that allow me to debunk
nonsensical statements such as the one above. Do you really believe
that the Human species is only capable of continual warfare?


> A properly designed constitution, such as the U.S. Constitution, does 
> /not/ give monopolistic power to government. It /divides/ power into 
> numerous levels, states, counties, branches, houses, courts, 
> departments, and officers, precisely to prevent excessive or unbalanced 
> concentrations of power in the "same hands". Part of the supervision 
> needed is to  make sure they don't unite as a single faction against
the 
> people. On the other hand, the people are supposed to unite into 
> supervisory groups: associations, parties, militia units, grand and 
> trial juries, etc. They are not supposed to be unorganized. Part of the 
> supervision needed is to make sure those supervising groups remain 
> strong and united. Remember, the Founders expected militia to always be 
> able to defeat the regular military.


You have no faith in the stability of voluntary organizations, and yet
you depend on them to keep a coercive organization in check. Do you
see a problem here?

---Sasan



Reply via email to