HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:53:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.193102.18894@lclark.edu>, matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander) writes:
>   Actually, I think that Greg has a point. Pure anarchy means no government.
>If the warlords use military force and power to control and enforce their
>respective authorities, are they not in fact feudal states?
>   On the other hand, even without organized clan governments, there would
>most likely still be violence and starvation. Anarchy in and of itself does
>not automatically create peace and happiness. 

I don't follow Horn of Africa events closely, so anyone feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong.  Wasn't the starvation problem in Somalia pretty bad, if not just
as bad, before the de-jure government there fell?  Is the problem currently
substantially worse in Somalia than in neighboring countries where the
institution of de-jure government is still in force:  Ethiopia and Sudan?  And
does it make any difference at all whether you're a Soviet client like Ethiopia
or an Amerikan client like Somalia or Sudan?

Seems the introduction of anarchISM into that region couldn't make matters any
worse, even in a worst-case scenario.  At least a MILITANT "non-aligned
movement".  (Non-alignment is even more important (IMHO) in a one superpower
world).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

In 1834 Issac Fisher patented sandpaper. He really had it rough.
				-- "On This Day in History"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:31:08 MST
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1993Jan8.103601.90921@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>        While we all agree that a sustainable state of Anarchy requires
>each individual to hold themselves accountable for the consequences of their
>actions, we need to address circumstances where this "pure" ideal is not
>upheld. As I stated, the action of one individual to recruit a "private
>army" and then use that army for personal advancement is not a violation of
>the basic Anarchist principal of each person acting as they see fit. 

The "Anarchist principal" is not "each person acting as they see fit."
The "Anarchist principal" is each person doing anything other than setting
up a government.  Once they set up a government, it is no longer Anarchy.
How do the Somali warlords differ from governments?  

If there were no warlords, just a bunch of people independently controlling
others with the use of guns, then it could still be Anarchy.

>Even
>within the ideal of personal accountability there are two courses one can
>follow. Knowing that an action will adversely interfere or harm someone
>else, will a person exercise restraint and not go through with that action,
>or go through with that action and surrender to the repercussions of that
>action. In an Anarchist state, how would the general populace deal with a
>"warlord" who has recruited a private army and does not hold themselves
>accountable to the other people they are affecting? Would it be proper
>for those being victimised to band together and use force to depose the
>warlord?

Of course.  It is always proper to overthrow military dictators.
(though it is not always intelligent to try)
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: NEWBIE QUESTION: genetics
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:35:07 GMT

In article <petel.726779394@bucket>, petel@bucket.rain.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
>I've always felt that the majority of the people (human race), say
>90 to 95% want or need to have someone 'lead' them, or to put it
>colder, they want someone to tell them, day by day what to do.
>
>The other 5 to 10% want to lead their own lives or at least want
>to have a say in what goes on.
>
>Any others have any ideas ?
>
>-pete
>Pete Lancashire
>petel@sequent.com

I've been waiting for someone to bring up this subject!

I (and many others, I'm sure) have invented a theory of personality that
recognizes three modes (not necessarily categories) of human social
interaction.  For lack of better terms, I shall call these modes Moe, Larry and
Curly.

Moe:  issues orders, offers insults, kicks ass etc.
Larry:  easily intimidated, grudgingly does what Moe says.
Curly:  ignores authority, even when hit upside head with sledge hammer.

Note that Curly is literally indestructable.  (Oo look!!!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

I am a mistake -- legalize abortion.
From: mhorning@zeus.calpoly.edu (Mark E. Horning (Captain Neutrino))
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Booklist + What is Anarchy
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:28:21 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

ian@spider.co.uk (Ian Heavens) states
>In article <1992Dec28.164941.3322@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>
>>Well, I find the claim that one can do without police of some kind
>>amusing. As a base example, without someone willing to use at least
>>retaliatory force, who will stop the psychopathic killers of the
>>world?
>
>There are a lot of police around, and still a lot of psychopaths.  Retaliation
>will not deter psychopaths, by their definition.  There is no easy solution
>to this kind of antisocial behaviour.

	Yes but if you hang the psycopaths in the public square you
slowly run out of psycopaths, and get a load of fertiliser to boot. In
general a win-win situation.


Mark E. Horning, Physics 	A penny saved is a congressional oversite.	
mhorning@pan.calpoly.edu	Don't steal, the IRS hates competition.

If you can't love the constitution, at least hate the government.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<J.TURNER.93Jan3164251@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<4JAN199309114896@mivax.mc.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:21:27 GMT

In article <4JAN199309114896@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH) writes:
   Not quite sure what you mean "omni-benevoloent...".  There was an
   intelligent discussion of what anarchy is/should be, but if you
   must stick to insults perhaps we can drop this thread.

Actually, the discussion should not be what anarcy "is" or "should
be", but rather what it "could be".  At the moment, Somalia is one of
the few places on Earth with out a "government", and, seemingly as a
direct result, is infested with armed gangs.  The question is, can you
have the first without the second?  Can you eliminate government and
still not have bandits?

Dale
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:02:29 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk (Daniel J Livingstone IE90) writes:
> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
>>>upheld. As I stated, the action of one individual to recruit a "private
>>>army" and then use that army for personal advancement is not a violation of
>>>the basic Anarchist principal of each person acting as they see fit.
>>
>>The "Anarchist principal" is not "each person acting as they see fit."

        Well, it depends on where you're coming from. The last thing you
should expect in a group like this is for us all to agree. BTW, I didn't
intend to imply that "each person acting as they see fit" was THE ONE AND
ONLY principal of Anarchy. If that was what I had wanted to say I would
have made it obvious.

>>The "Anarchist principal" is each person doing anything other than setting
>>up a government.  Once they set up a government, it is no longer Anarchy.
>>How do the Somali warlords differ from governments?

        You don't seem to have picked up the idea that I seperate the
action and the result of that action. For someone to go through the process
of setting themselves up as a warlord, and the social result of becoming a
warlord are, to me, two distinct situations. Certainly one is the product
of the other, but I choose to seperate them.

>>If there were no warlords, just a bunch of people independently controlling
>>others with the use of guns, then it could still be Anarchy.

        And if I chose to team up with Joe Bloggs because it suited me to
so, that would not be Anarchy?

>   Errrm... wouldn't that make the individual a (very, VERY) small scale
>   autocratic government. ie I'm in charge and everyone I can bully with
>   my one gun, had better do as I say or get rather dead.
>   Essentially, once someone ORDERS someone else, especially with the
>   possibility of death/injury for not obeying, then an `infringement
>   of anarchy' has occured. Because man with gun is doing what HE wants,
>   people bullied are not doing what they would otherwise wish, and are
>   being governed and bossed by our man with a gun.

        Which bings us back to the question, "where do we draw the line,
and what can/should/do we do when someone wants to overstep that line?".

        Let me put it another way, how would we ensure that people didn't
overstep "the line"? What level of enforced social conditionaing is
acceptable/necessary to ensure that each individual can be trusted to act
in a manner which will not disrupt the state of sustained Anarchy?

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: petel@bucket.rain.com (Pete Lancashire)
Subject: NEWBIE QUESTION: genetics
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:09:54 GMT

I've always felt that the majority of the people (human race), say
90 to 95% want or need to have someone 'lead' them, or to put it
colder, they want someone to tell them, day by day what to do.

The other 5 to 10% want to lead their own lives or at least want
to have a say in what goes on.

Any others have any ideas ?

-pete
Pete Lancashire
petel@sequent.com
From: andor@inode.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: ANARCHY IN SOMALIA
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:36:37 EST
Reply-To: andor@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, Usenet Access for NYC (212-679-9146)

 -=> Quoting Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.a to News <=-

 Bu> their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
 Bu> controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
 Bu> you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
 Bu> that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.

Sure it does. 

How much do you know about anarchism? Ever read Kropotkin? 

As soon as someone becomes a warlord, they have created a hierarchy. In that
hierarchy, they have created a system of command and coercion. 

Where there is hierarchy and command there is not anarchism.

You may be thinking of "anarchy" the state of disarray and lack of
government. That is entirely different from anarchism, the state of lack of
authority. 
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 1
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:35:06 MST
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

In article <1993Jan6.151924.90906@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>        Because they saw an oppourtunity to become warlords and
>did so. You seem to think that anarchy is only anarchy when the
>actions of each individual remain inside a set of defined "rules".
>ie. if everyone just went about their buisiness and tried to
>co-exist with each other without resorting to threats and coertion,
>that is anarchy. If someone recruits their own private army and
>aquires "power" by using that army, that isn't anarchy.
>
>        I'm sorry Greg, but the second case is also anarchy. However
>much you and I might wish for a system of peaceful co-existance,
>where each individual has *complete* freedom of choice in running
>their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
>controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
>you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
>that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.

Anarchy means no government.  So I guess the problem here is the 
definition of a government.  Just because a country has decentralized
governments does not mean there is no government.  In Somalia, many
cities or parts of cities have dictators with armies.  They even
collect taxes.  Why should these dictators not be considered governments?
----
Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
----
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<1993Jan4.203613.18402@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1993Jan6.151924.90906@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
	<6JAN199313495004@mivax.mc.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:33:23 GMT

In article <6JAN199313495004@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Yourself) writes:
   But I still think somalia isn't anarchy.
   The competing warlords are trying to BECOME the GOVERNMENT.

   If it acts like a government and smells like a governement and looks like
   a government...

As far as I can tell from the news reports, the present "factions" and
"warlords" aren't even trying to act like governments -- they are the
bosses of loose coalitions of armed gangs, and maintain the gangs'
support only by providing them with the opportunity to loot.

(The difference between a government and an armed gang is that the
government's army follows orders, and will die to support the
authority of the government, while an armed gang fights only for the
personal benefit of the individual soldiers.  That's why armies
usually win against gangs.  Probably, that's why governments conquor
anarchies.)

Dale
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:19:23 +1100
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
> j.turner@lynx.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
>>seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>>>Anarchy means no one is forcing people to behave a certain way.
>>
>>>Somalia isn't anarchy.  It's chaos and distopia.
>>
>>    I didn't realize the Somalis were "forced" to do anything.
>>They could choose to join one gang or another or be prey to ALL
>>of them.  I'm sorry, you were talking about omni-benevolent,
>>lobotomized comic book anarchy after all.  My mistake.
>
> Somalia's problem is not that there is no government.  The problem
> has been several governments fighting each other, with civillians
> caught in the crossfire.  If Somalia is an anarchy, why are there
> so many "warlords" controlling different parts of the country?

        Because they saw an oppourtunity to become warlords and
did so. You seem to think that anarchy is only anarchy when the
actions of each individual remain inside a set of defined "rules".
ie. if everyone just went about their buisiness and tried to
co-exist with each other without resorting to threats and coertion,
that is anarchy. If someone recruits their own private army and
aquires "power" by using that army, that isn't anarchy.

        I'm sorry Greg, but the second case is also anarchy. However
much you and I might wish for a system of peaceful co-existance,
where each individual has *complete* freedom of choice in running
their life, there are those who choose to ensure their own survival by
controlling and dominating other people around them. I, and I suspect
you as well, find this sort of survival "morally repulsive", but
that doesn't mean it's not anarchy.


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
                        Big Government = Bad Government!

                   My employer disowns *all* of my opinions.
From: dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk (Daniel J Livingstone IE90)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:59:07 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.

In article <1993Jan7.223109.17417@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.103601.90921@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:

>>upheld. As I stated, the action of one individual to recruit a "private
>>army" and then use that army for personal advancement is not a violation of
>>the basic Anarchist principal of each person acting as they see fit. 
>
>The "Anarchist principal" is not "each person acting as they see fit."
>The "Anarchist principal" is each person doing anything other than setting
>up a government.  Once they set up a government, it is no longer Anarchy.
>How do the Somali warlords differ from governments?  

  Yup. For sure.

>If there were no warlords, just a bunch of people independently controlling
>others with the use of guns, then it could still be Anarchy.

  Errrm... wouldn't that make the individual a (very, VERY) small scale
  autocratic government. ie I'm in charge and everyone I can bully with
  my one gun, had better do as I say or get rather dead.
  Essentially, once someone ORDERS someone else, especially with the
  possibility of death/injury for not obeying, then an `infringement
  of anarchy' has occured. Because man with gun is doing what HE wants,
  people bullied are not doing what they would otherwise wish, and are
  being governed and bossed by our man with a gun.


>Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!

        yeah, ok.

kidd
-- 
dlivings@cs.strath.ac.uk
Daniel, aka MBKidd
- Reality is what you make it
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: [alt.security.ripem,sci.crypt] Cuba and USA
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:36:37 GMT

A repost from alt.security.ripem,sci.crypt:

From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill Stewart +1-908-949-0705)
Subject: Re: RSAREF and RIPEM now available via anonymous FTP
Organization: the best minds of a generation, destroyed by madness
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:00:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.222422.11146@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
   Ed Hamrick raises the new question of whether a book available at
   B. Dalton's, which contains the DES code, is exportable.
....
   If Ed wants to pursue this, an interesting and amusing experiment
   would be to call the book's publisher and ask if they will fulfill
   prepaid mail orders for that book from outside COCOM countries--say
   Iraq or Cuba or the PRC.

Stick with China for examples like this.  Cuba's a special case,
covered by the Trading With The Enemy laws, which somehow apply even
though we haven't declared war on them.  Folks who live in the Land of
the Free and Home of the Brave can't even go to visit Cuba except by
special government permission (mainly given to educational groups and
journalists) without getting thrown in jail for visiting that
totalitarian country -- if you can't legally buy one of their cigars,
selling them books about how to hide communications from governments
is not likely to be legal either, unless you work for Ollie North.

--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
Bush's pardon of his co-conspirators shows that he is, in the end, still a wimp.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
From: leecr@microsoft.com (Lee Crocker)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 05 Jan 93 19:07:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <casseres-040193094041@missmolly.apple.com> casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes:
>In article <scottj-291292090620@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>,
>scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) wrote:
>
>I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws, and
>absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.

I wouldn't call it a contradiction so much as a choice of tackling the
easier problem first.  While I and other Libertarians are definitely
opposed to clothing laws, that's not an area which we are overly
concerned about or confident that we can make a meaningful difference.
There are lots of obscure parts of the platform that we don't talk
about much (like selling body parts or legalizing duels) not because
of any inconsistency of opinion, but simply because they aren't big
issues on the political front today and don't deserve as much attention
as the more pressing issues like drug laws and taxes.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker    | Free minds; free bodies; free trade.
leecr@microsoft.com   | Libertarian Party  1-800-682-1776
From: andor@inode.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: FREEDOM, SOCIAL RESPO
Date: 12 Jan 93 08:28:31 EST
Reply-To: andor@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, Usenet Access for NYC (212-679-9146)

 -=> Quoting Alex Andor to Leecr@microsoft.com <=-

 To me, one of the most glaring problems of libertarianism is the
 following inconsistancy:

 Libertarians I've talked to maintain very strongly that they don't
 support monarchy or oligarchy. That is -- they don't support the idea
 of there being one or a few people who own everything. 

 And yet they are not willing to accept any laws that would prevent one
 person from owning everything. 

 With the natural tendency (pointed out by Adam Smith) of wealth to
 concentrate and of companies to become larger and larger, it seems
 obvious that after several hundred years of complete free enterprise
 one or a very few people would own everything.

 Everyone else would be merely glorified slaves or bondsmen.

 That is not the future I want, nor is it the future the libertarians
 want. Yet their refusal to support limits on expansion or ownership
 virtually insures that this would be the outcome of their policies, if
 implemented.  
 Responses, please.
 


--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 2
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns