Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!rsiatl!jgd From: jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Anarchy (was Re: Fool) Message-ID: <4710@rsiatl.UUCP> Date: 8 Nov 90 22:36:17 GMT Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car and gun works facility) Lines: 84 craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >The Usenet is NOT an anarchy. No matter how many times you click your heels >and say it, the Usenet is not an anarchy. The alt.* network comes closer to >being an anarchy, but even there, there are guidelines being formulated and >"enforced". The Usenet has even more rules and regulations and policies and >procedures and guidelines. And they are remarkably well observed by the vast >majority of the users of the network. Why do people seem to think that an anarchist society automatically means that people have to act like browian motion? Anarchy != chaos. And chaos != bad. Yes, Usenet IS anarchy. There are suggested guideline and rules are just that - suggestions. The reason they are suggestions is that there is NO enforcement authority nor will there ever be. Sure some of the subnets have enforcement but that is not the general case. Part of a benevolent anarchy is that you have to put up with things that just absolutely, totally piss you off. And it probably pisses you off even more because you know that you are totally powerless to do anything about it. The comments to the effect that if someone acts up too much, we'll just cut their feed off is at best, a hollow threat. As long as there is someone in this world who will feed another site either free or for pay, you cannot effectively cut anyone off. All you can do is make it cost them a bit more. Even if everybody were to modify news software to filter a user or site, all that's necessary to circumvent this is a host or user name change. If the government sponsored part of the internet goes away, we will make up for it with dialup links and commercial operations like UUNET. >I guess the point that I am trying to make here, is that, I don't believe that >this society can advance given the inefficiencies. If it doesn't advance, it >will peak (has peaked?). And then, like all great societies before it, it will >decline. The decline will not nessesarily be precipitated by only internal >forces. This society operates within a larger society which can, and has, had >impact on the smaller group. I believe that the opposite is true. Society thrives while the anarchy coefficient is high. As government places its tentacles into more and more portions of peoples' lives, society dies under its own weight. I also believe that a society thrives because it has a mission. America's mission was to build a truely free society. Usenet's mission has been to try to rebuild a truely free electronic society. As the vision of the mission dims, society follows. The more we talk about and try to implement controls and rules and regulations on Usenet, the faster it will die. >Do not confuse my ramblings with a call for sanity. I also believe that there >should be groups that can provide a safety valve against a build up of >reasonableness. And there are groups and networks for this. I feel that BIFF >is funny and harmless. And I know where to go when I need a dose of BIFF. But >I don't want BIFF and his clones erupting all over. I have to ask a rhetorical "why not?" You have the means at your disposal to totally ignore what you don't like. And if we all ignore universally idiotic behavior, the perpetrator will go away because he will not enjoy talking to himself. Anarchy works! >I am afraid that I must disagree about the weapons being equal. Being several >modem connections away from the Internet backbone, my firing rate is at musket >level while those on the backbone have a machine gun rate. I don't understand. If you get a full feed, how does it matter how many hops off the net you are? I've certainly never had a problem holding my own in any debate despite the fact I'm a hop off the internet :-) >With respect to authority, there IS some authority in the guidelines and the >adherence most sites give to them. But it is not sufficient to prevent the >worst violators of the guidelines from causing a lot of disruptions. With all due respect, how does a "worst violator" cause "disruption" - assuming, of course, that the viloation does not involve dumping a hard disk full of crap onto the net? Pissing people off != disruption. It is, after all, each person's choice of whether or not to get pissed off. I'm sure that someone somewhere will get pissed at both our postings, given that we're on opposite sides of this issue. But that does NOT disrupt the net as a whole. I can think of few things that COULD disrupt the net. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of Performance Products Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | to the Trade " (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"