Xref: utzoo news.admin:4729 news.groups:7284
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!polya!ramsey
From: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Social Compact (was Re: rec.humor.funny - A Peace Proposal)
Message-ID: <6734@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 8 Feb 89 22:54:57 GMT
References: <1241@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> <319@dcs.UUCP> <232@algor2.UUCP>
Reply-To: ramsey@polya.Stanford.EDU (Ramsey W. Haddad)
Followup-To: news.admin
Organization: Computer Science Department
Lines: 20

In article <232@algor2.UUCP> jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:
>
>The net is now a democracy/autocracy/anarchy.  Newsgroup are created or
>eliminated democratically.  News is distributed via an anarchy with some
>autocratic elements.  Posting is anarchic except in moderated newsgroups.  A
>moderated newsgroup is a democratically licensed autocracy.  Is this the
>structure that makes most sense?  What should the net/moderator relationship be?
>

Perhaps this isn't the place for a full discussion of this, but it
isn't it interesting that:
 (1) Political philosophers over the years have reasoned about
imaginary social compacts agreed to by all the individuals in a
society.
 (2) USENET is probably the most significant case to date where a real
social compact is being worked out between its members.  ... And by a
bunch of us who probably have read very little Locke, Rousseau, etc.

-- 
Ramsey W Haddad