Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig
From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Anarchy (Re: Fool)
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.162646.15957@com50.c2s.mn.org>
Date: 18 Nov 90 16:26:46 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.033234.9412@com50.c2s.mn.org> <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Lines: 30

In article <8Pqis5w163w@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca> curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) 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 think that this describes usenet pretty well.

I must say that I have never seen that definition of anarchy.  I have three
dictionaries that I use depending upon where I am at and none of them come
anywhere close to a definition like the one given above.

>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?

I still contend that there is centralized authority in some things.

I wouldn't be able to call the Usenet any one word.  We are dealing with 
a relatively new phenomenom.  That is why I feel that arbitrarily attempting 
to categorize it in old terms is not fair.  The words create the perception.
The perception tries to become the reality.

I had thought that one of the reasons for this particular group was to discuss
the nature of the network and the interactions of it's participants and
overseers.  Why start by predjudicing the discussion?

/craig