>Just look at the world prior to WWI. Treat each country as an
>individual person.
A person with the power to tax, to conscript armies, and generally
to shift the consequences of his actions onto innocent peasants --
okay, got it. I'm not convinced that this analogy fits my neighbors
well enough to model how they'd behave in anarchy.
>The history of international relations until WWI is a study in
>anarchy. Accordingly, the history of humanity is the history of war
>between nations in an anarchic system.
(What has changed since 1914?)
The history of humanity is a tale of wars because statists write the
history books, and to statists, activity other than war is ignoble.
I prefer to see the history of humanity as a tale of trade and invention.
>While I see that it is anarchic, in some sense, to have all people
>contracting singly with all others in order to protect themselves,
>how can this be desirable? You can't make a contract with every
>single person you come into contact with.
Are you acquainted with PGP and the "web of trust" idea?
[...]
>But in the U.S. republic, there's nothing one idiot can do in four
>years that the next idiot can't undo in four years.
When was the last time an official wrong on that level got righted
in only four years?
Example: It's more than four years since one idiot ordered an invasion
of Panama (killing a couple of thousand Panamenhos) because Pineapple Face
had outlived his usefulness. Has the new idiot given any sign of repudiating
such adventures?
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher@netcom.com