From: Mike Lorrey (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jan 06 2002 - 09:59:44 MST
Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 08:01:01PM -0800, James Rogers wrote:
> > On 12/24/01 1:17 AM, "Mike Linksvayer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > In the early years of this list (a decade ago!?) the state was
> > > something to be smashed, or at least completely avoided, and race,
> > > sex, and sexual orientation were annoying baggage that could and
> > Yeah, what the hell happened to that list? I'm trying to figure out
> > when/where I left it for a current events discussion list...
> Hey, I've been on the list for nearly a decade. Well, 8.5 years.
> But... I was never 100% behind the anarchist program -- I'd argue for it
> with more statist friends, then come here and play arch-conservative or
> toy with quasi-socialist ideas as an exercise. But ignore the
> socialism. These days anarchy and even minarchy seem naive.
Well, I look at it as merely one state of a dynamic polity. Anarchism is
the ideal that should be pursued in peacetime. Whe the polity is under
attack, greater cooperation and association, at least temporarily, is
necessary to overcome the external threat. The healthy anarchist society
will cycle back and forth between the two as circumstances dictate, all
the while understanding that individual liberty is our highest ideal.
> But an anarchy can't necessarily respond to invasion or selfish people
> destroying the ozone layer with CFCs either.
I liked, for instance, in Damien Broderick's "The White Abacus", when
Telmah and his friends have a contest with Ratio and his AI associates,
Telmah's anarchist friends all sign contracts of temporary deferment of
individual autonomy to Telmah's authority for the duration of the
contest. Such flexibility is what is necessary for an anarchist society
to deal properly with the real needs of defense against foreign threats.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST