From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417)
Subject: Re: music censorship in WA state now in effect
Summary: anarchy is *not* authoritarians run amok, as they want you to believe
Keywords: Confucian censorship (shudder!)
Organization: Cores 'R Us
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 18:41:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.050740.11754@u.washington.edu> iho@cac.washington.edu writes:
>kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) writes:
>> iho@cac.washington.edu writes:
>
>> >In my opinion, that's what government is for: to force the values
>> >of the majority on the rest of the population.
>> Is this flame-bait or what??  Are you serious??
>
>> >                                                I don't think that's
>> >a bad thing.
>> Don't be shy.  Please tell us, if you will, what is *good* about that??
>
>I'm dead serious here.  We can't all go around doing as we please.

You authoritarians keep saying that.  Why?

>                                                                    See
>my statement which you've so kindly quoted below.
>
>> >              In order to have an orderly society, each of us has to
>> >forfeit certain liberties.

If you want an authoritarian society, you have to forfeit certain liberties.
This is true, not that I agree with it.  However, this is not the same as an
"orderly society".  A fictional example of an "orderly society" might be
"Ecotopia", by Ernest Callenbach.

>> This whole forum must *really* piss you off!  Don't you wish you
>> could put a stop to it?  Don't you wish people were more respectful of
>> the authorities?

Please be aware that this would be a *proscribed discussion* in most
"orderly societies" that I am aware of, as tending towards "improper
thoughts", "disrespect for authority", or "conduct prejudicial to the
interests of society".

>I think you misunderstand me.  The forum does not piss me off in the
>least bit.  My philosophy isn't based on blindly following rules.  It's
>based on Locke's social contract theory.  While anarchy is not desirable,
>a society of mindless sheep is even less so.  By the way, I think we're
>getting a bit off of the topic.  We're now just talking about me, and
>not about the issue.

Sorry for misunderstanding you.  Locke *absolutely* must be leavened with
some Mill.  See John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", available at fine used
bookstores everywhere.  This should be required reading for anybody
discussing the ins and outs of societies, governance, individual sovereignty
vs. the body politic, etc., etc.

Can you give a capsule rundown of Locke's "social contract" theory?
I must say that I am suspicious of and give little credence to theories
that assume an "implied contract" existing between individuals, born
willy-nilly into a milieu they had no part in constructing, and the putative
representative of that milieu, the State or society.  Typically, contracts
denote relationships that are *freely negotiated* (that's the theory, anyway)
 between sovereign entities (rarely the case in practice, inasmuch as 90% of
contracts are between gross unequals).  Contract may be the wrong word to use
here if it is used to name the relationship between individuals and the State.
Perhaps "contract" here is used in a jargonistic sense, as among political
scientists?

Desirability of anarchy:  Advocates of lawNorder persist in defining anarchy
as what they would do if they weren't there to keep an eye on themselves,
and telling us that the resulting carnage can be avoided by allowing them
to run society!  If that isn't a shell game, I don't know what is!
Does anybody remember the "Missing Watergate Tapes", a satirical recording
put out by National Lampoon in the mid-70's?  In there, L. Patrick Gray is
heard: "This is L. Patrick Gray of the FBI!  Now I know I'm in there!  If I
don't come out with my hands up, I'm coming in after me!"

Come on, lawNorder folks!  You are always talking about how bad anarchy is,
but all the historical examples I know that purport to demonstrate so, are
really instances of authoritarians (i. e., true believers) running amok with
the *sanction* of the society/authorities.  Not the same thing at all.
I think it's unfair to define anarchy as a side-effect of contention for
authority.  As examples of "anarchy" as the authoritarians define it, we
recall the Cultural revolution in China, Iran just after the Shah's fall,
the miners in Bucharest, Beirut...we can go on and on, but the upshot is
that these are all instances of the *manifestation*, indeed, *excess* of
authority, not the absence of it.

For real examples of anarchy in action, look at usenet; look at the Spanish
anarchists in the `30's or Russian/Ukrainian anarchists in the Revolution;
observe traffic patterns at any failed traffic light; look at how people
conduct themselves in *any* *real* crisis.  People didn't need to be
compelled or conscripted to do rescue work after the recent earthquake in
SF-land; they did it themselves, with no prompting or chivvying from the
authorities.  If anything, the authorities made the situation worse despite
their good intentions.  There was a whole issue of Whole Earth Review devoted
to the subject, not long after the `quake.  I think there were articles in
the same publication talking about the difficulties civic-minded citizens
had with the authorities during the Oakland Fire.

As far as mindless sheep goes, haven't we learned by now that the best way
to *get* a society of "mindless sheep" is to cater to their every need in an
authoritarian and paternalistic fashion, and to come down hard on those who
show signs of independence?  Authoritarian societies *need* a
strong core of people unable to function without regulation.  By temporarily
lifting restrictions and letting such people "act out their innate anarchy",
the society is, in a self-serving manner, able to not only weed out
"free-thinkers" and other dangerous social deviants, but to demonstrate that,
yes, Virginia, anarchy is dangerous, and so, when "what must be done" *has*
been done, the lid gets clamped back on...

When all is said and done, we are confronted with the seemingly eternal
paradox of societies, states, governments and other human institutions
acting in ways which they themselves would prohibit to any individual.
More concretely, in any authoritiarian society, the rule-makers are the
biggest rule-breakers.  The guardians turn out to be the only group that
needs guarding.  They provide the example that defines their necessity.

kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)