anarchy was : Silk Road founder arrested ...
Juan Garofalo
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 19:56:34 PDT 2013
--On Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:12 AM +0200 Lodewijk andré de la porte
<l at odewijk.nl> wrote:
> 2013/10/2 Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
>
>
> I think you need to research the ABC of political theory before saying
> anything about anarchy. Your belief that anarchy is chaos is as unfounded
> as it is laughable.
>
>
> Anarchy as a word does not mean a thing.
Right, it doesn't mean one thing, it means *two* different and mutually
exclusive things. It is vulgarly used to mean 'chaos', and it's used by
advocates of voluntary interactions to describe a social system based on
voluntary interactions.
You know, voluntary interactions : The opposite of cheering the drug laws
of the american state.
> It's the people in it that shape
> it. This is as much as risk as it is a feature. From chaos men makes
> shapes, structures. These structures must, by the very absence of it,
> reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of course the extends and
> all will depend upon the people.
A government is a criminal organization that violates rights to life
liberty and property. Those criminal 'functions' of government can't exist
in a voluntary society.
If 'people' 'reimplement' what government does, then we are not talking
about anarchy.
>
>
> Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by
> the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible.
> Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to
> people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that ease
> makes it have a good return.
Not sure what you're getting at...
>
> So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite
> chaotic,
> as no rel leaders are permitted to arise.
I don't see the connection between leaders and their sheep on one hand and
'chaos' on the other.
It's quite possible to have 'order' without 'leaders'. It's called
self-government. Or doing what you like and leaving your neighbor alone.
>Of course it's
> possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible
> collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos.
>
Individuals can interact as individuals, voluntary and with no 'chaos' in
sight. I don't see why it should be 'unstable'.
> Now if you'd be so kind to tell me why your tone was so insulting and the
> reasons for thinking the way you do, then perhaps this can become an
> interesting conversation.
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list