Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bbs!ddsw1!zane
From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Anarchy (Re: Fool)
Message-ID: <1990Nov14.020638.7227@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Date: 14 Nov 90 02:06:38 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org> <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca>
Reply-To: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Lines: 28

In article <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes:
>craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes:
>
>
>From The Random House College Dictionary:
>
>    anarchy, n.  3. a theory that proposes the cooperative and
>        voluntary association of individuals and groups as the
>        principal mode of organised society.
I like that definition.  I forgot, what was the name of the Enlightenment
philospher who spoke of the noble savages?
>The usenet is basically a bunch of people who have come to some sort
>of consensus about how to act and regulate themselves accordingly,
>without any central authority.  What would you call this if not an
>anarchy?
	Now that you say it, I realize it.  I had never thought an good
anarchy was possible.  I knew that an IDEAL anarchy was the good one, but
never thought it could come about.  But maybe this isn't the ideal
anarchy.  People STILL flame each other a lot.  If these people weren't
separated by many miles, and can't PHYSICALLY harm the other, then
it wouldn't work.  But they can't, so this is working.


-- 
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM