From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Looking for Anarchism refs to read
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:56:12 GMT

w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>In article <PMETZGER.92Dec25124149@snark.shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>I don't know who's book you read, but "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
>>does indeed largely depict an anarchist society. An anarchocapitalist
>>society, certainly, which is bound to disgust certain
>>antipropertarians on this list (I'm a propertarian myself), but it is
>>indisputably an anarchist society. Other than an impotent governor
>>who's men serve solely to attempt to try to collect money from
>>exports, the penal colony has no internal government whatsoever and is
>>depicted as functioning entirely on a customary legal basis. Is not
>>the definition of an anarchy a society (hopefully a functioning one)
>>without a government? 

>I consider absence of government to be a necessary condition for
>anarchy, but not a sufficient condition.  If these people were
>anarchists, why did they call their political entity "Luna Free
>STATE"?

By the end of the book they've degenerated into a government and
Manny, the main character, is talking about leaving for the asteroid
belt. 

>>I suspect your claim is based on some notion that anarchism must be
>>collectivist in flavor. Just because I don't like the society in "The
>>Dispossessed" by Le Guin doesn't mean I wouldn't admit its an anarchy.
>>Similarly, you shouldn't claim that the society in "The Moon is a
>>Harsh Mistress" isn't an anarchy just because you don't like it.
>
>Why do you not like the society depicted in "The Dispossessed"?  Would life on
>Anarres place limitations on your potential?

Yes. I think the system as structured their, based entirely on notions
of self sacrifice and obediance to the group, is obscene. However,
that doesn't mean there was a government there.

>  If so, why call it anarchy?

Because there was no government involved -- all the stuff I object to
was a voluntary part of the culture.

>As for myself, my idea of Human Dignity is working (in the economic
>sense) for survival only, and hopefully having enough leisure time to
>have the opportunity to do something creative with my life.

You have that capacity now. A 19th century standard of living can be
sustained by most people with virtually no work. You can likely buy a
plot of land out somewhere with a cabin on it without running water or
electricity, earn enough money to buy basic food and clothing and
enough rice and beans to permit you to survive in only a few hours a
month, and spend most of your time writing poetry. What took a man in
the 19th century 60 hours a week can now be achieved in hours a month.
However, our standards of what is a normal lifestyle have changed. We
are hundreds of times wealthier, and thus hundreds of times more
real income is required to satisfy our wants. However, if you are
willing to forgo things like electric lighting and a VCR, and live
like a well to do 19th century peasant, it should require virtually no
work at all.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.