> However, a member of a gang, even if not a
> leader, shares in power and privilege as
> compared to people who are not gang
> members, to the extent that the gang is
> able to do as it wills without
> interference from some more-powerful
I'm still not convinced this is "everybody wanting the power." I
originally said this is "how" a stable anarchy could exist, the
likelihood of it doing so is highly remote. And the events leading up
to these transitions are unlikely.
Besides gangs, what you talk of can be applied to voters. If you
can't be in the big chair, you want someone similar to be there instead.
This may seem strange, but as we approach better forms of government
the likelihood of anarchy increases. The better a government is the
more political diversity (as people concentrate on smaller and smaller
problems that create a greater number of divides in opinion.) The
more political diversity the less likely gangs and organisations will
appear. Add to this a degree of paranoia, and you could solve the
problems of organisation and have the system collapse into stable
> Without private property, why do people
They have no choice but to share resources with everyone who wants
them. It may not be formal co-operation, but it is co-operation.
> The purpose of work is gain the resources
> to survive and do what you *really* want
> to do.
It's economic Darwinism, but that doesn't make it the only way of
doing things. This is after all, the extropian list where we talk
about doing things differently.
> The dancer has no right to say that for
> this period each day the dance studio he
> built is *not* available as a place for
> small children to play.
I think you've jumped ahead of yourself here.
Private Property: The government enforces the individuals right to own
No Private Property: The government does not enforce the individuals
right to own property.
Anti-Private Property: The government enforces the properties right
not to be owned.
With no private property you can protect your right to anything you
wish. As I said anarchy is about the illusion of freedom, you're
never going to be truly free someone somewhere is always going to be
after your dance floor.
> A perfect social or political system, in
> all systems I have examined, requires
> perfect people in some quantity --
> dictatorship being the best in this regard
> because it requires the fewest perfect
> people, and anarchy among the worst
> because it requires that the overwhelming
> majority -- possibly everyone -- be
> perfect. In this part of the world,
> perfect people are a rather scarce item,
> and what I read in the newspapers doesn't
> tell me that this is a strictly local
Your reasoning is sound but doesn't take subjectivity into account.
'Perfection' is probably the most subjective term you can think of.
In my opinion, a governments role is to make life cosy for it's people
so they can get on with the important stuff (like nanotechnology and
space travel) without worrying where their next meals coming from.
Unfortunately, about 80% of what a modern government does is to keep
itself in power (the latest war, the latest drug scare, etc.) The
concept of such a government is sound transhumanism.
This email has allowed me to build a coherent (but complex) political
The "anarcho-centralist" wants everyone to serve his or her needs but
also recognises everyone else's want to do the same.
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com