HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johansc@hedda.uio.no (Johan Schimanski)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Iceland
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: Comparative Literature - Oslo
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:19:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.232156.9833@shearson.com>,
pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) wrote:
> 
> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> >pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

> >	You might want to look into an "allthing," which is roughly
> >a glorified island meeting, where disagreements are settled by right
> >of arms (ie: beat each other up until one quits or dies), or by general
> >concensus.  As I understand, a chieftan-type moderated the thing.
> >The Norse model has been remarkably close to a Constitutional Monarchy
> >than an anarchy for a good deal of its history.
> 
> I think you exagerate. The Icelanders had no chieftain or king, so the
> "constitutional monarchy" bit isn't accurate. The allthing was largely
> an annual fair, but it did have substantial legal features -- the
> lawspeaker recited one third of the customary legal code at each
> allthing, courts met, etc. Trial by combat was not an Icelandic
> custom, although the settlement of some disputes by arms did occur as
> the courts were powerless to do more than declare someone an outlaw if
> they failed to comply with the law. It was not precisely anarchy as I
> would envision it, but the major features, including a purely civil
> legal system and private enforcement of the law, were all there.

The Icelandic system also produced a lot of good literature in a
Dostoevskyan vein, all about insoluble family feuds and the fun people had
when they got killed dead. Makes you think, doesn't it? (the whole thing
was based on slavery anyway).

Johan Schimanski             johansc@hedda.uio.no
pb.1015 Blindern               N-0315 OSLO, Norway
+47-2-18 38 00                    +47-2-85 40 37
my love is like a liquid    it flow fitful day and night
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:03:48 GMT

gr2a@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.234401.26315@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>Gee, I thought it would come to this. Pretty soon you'll not only be
>>arguing that Lysander Spooner wasn't an anarchist, but that Benjamin
>>Tucker wasn't an anarchist, either. Going to renounce Proudhon next,
>>my friend? He had some propertarian ideas himself.
>
>	Propertarian ideas that can be summed up by the line he is most
>famous for: "property is theft".

He also said "property is liberty". Unless you've actually read enough
Proudhon to understand the context, I'd say you're treading on very
thin ice. Proudhon was no anarchocapitalist by a long shot, but
neither was he someone the collectivist anarchists on this list would
likely agree with at first glance.

> Going to forget
>>Nock. Hey, you go to UChicago. I might point out that David Friedman
>>in your econ department is an anarchocapitalist, but then I'd be lying
>>because after all no real anarchist could believe in private property.
>	(and so on and so forth interminably, the froth spewing from
>		his mouth...)
>
>	You know, after reading this reply, I realize I should really
>apologize for that last posting of mine because there was something I 
>wasn't taking into account when I wrote it: something which makes the
>whole argument entirely irrelevent. I didn't realize that I was 
>responding to a person who was totally stupid.

Ah. Well, I didn't realize that I was speaking to a person who's
arguments are so weak that the best he could do was resort to insult.
Had I realized that the best you could do was call me "stupid", I
would have tried to give you some help a while ago. "Stupid" is, after
all, a fairly weak insult, even when supplemented by the modifyer
"totally". Had you, for instance, refered to me as a phalologocentric
white male opressor operating using a deviant class oriented reasoning
system, I would have at least had cause to be impressed with your
mastery of left wing jargon. However, if all you can come up with is
"totally stupid", well, there isn't very much cause for any of us to
be suprised by your innovation at all, is there?
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 02:51:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.214834.24881@vela.acs.oakland.edu> w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu writes:
>Thanks for bringing that up, I had almost forgotten.  Since Perry wants
>"anarchism" to be a big inclusive umbrella, can I assume he has no problem with
>anti-capitalists billing themselves as "libertarians" or "voluntarists"? 

Anyone can call themselves whatever they want. I am willing to
call an anti-capitalist a libertarian/voluntarist if they do not
advocate breaking up my voluntary relationships by force. 

>Anarcho-capitalists and related ideologies seem to prefer to call us
>"collectivists".  I'm about as collectivist as Perry is conservative.

I do not use the term collectivist if for no other reason than
that Randians do use it.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Very stupid"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Looking for a book
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:53:04 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

mapam@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr R A Khwaja) writes:

> 
> I'm looking for a book called "The Anarchist's Handbook.
> It was about making bombs from everyday items and practical advice
> on being an urban terrorist, that sort of thing.
> I'd be very grateful for help in locating a copy.
> The only copy I ever saw was photocopied from someone else.

It's the Anarchists Cookbook.  Be careful, some of the information is 
wrong and you could put out your eye.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:35:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.195405.23236@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>Hold on, Michael. I will not disagree with you that my brand of
>anarchism and probably yours is about setting up agreements that are
>eminently feasable and practical, but "anarchist" is a very broad
>designation and lots of anarchists are indeed utopians who's ideas
>can't be implemented. 

Perhaps. In which case I want them to think about implementing
their ideas. Maybe a bit of pragmatic thinking will cause them
to reevaluate some ideas which fly in the face of reality.
Arguing about what 'ought' to work will not accomplish this (or
much of anything else, other than excess bandwidth absorbtion).
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Very stupid"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:38:00 GMT
Followup-To:  alt.society.anarchy

Note followups; also, my site does not receive a.s.a. so this is my
last post for this thread.

In article <1993Jan24.145207.27128@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>Pardon me for barging in, but I'd like to address this.
>
>In article <1993Jan20.235312.18675@cbnews.cb.att.com> lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>>
>>That these acts are done even under the threat of punishment tells me
>>that it would be a lot worse if there was no punishement.
>>
>>That is why people value government, warts and all.
>
>The prudent, the careful, the farsighted, and, yes, the coward are
>*deterred* by the threat of punishment.

Criminals are "rational" in the sense that they weigh the costs and
benefits of a crime, and if they believe the benefits outweight the costs
they commit the crime; "right" or "lawful" aren't relevant to them.

>but the coward can be more
>effectively deterred by the threat of immediate and permanent sanction
>at the hands of his intended victim, *if* that victim wasn't deterred
>by threat of government sanction from defending himself and his property.

There are right and wrong things a person can do to defend him or
her self.  Killing someone because they shoplift a candy bar from
you is wrong, and should be illegal.  Fortunately, it is.

>Since government by definition is a *reactive* force, it is rarely in
>a position to stop a crime in progress. It can only come in and attempt
>to clean up after the fact. The potential victim, however, is always
>in a position to respond to a crime in progress,

"Always" ?!?  That's a pretty bold exaggration.

>*provided* he is allowed the means to do so, *and* is free from
>fear of sanctions for any such actions.

Well, we agree with that much at least.  Gov't should not prevent
people from defending themselves, nor should it prosecute them
for doing so, unless they pull some bullshit like shooting someone
for shoplifting.

>Since government's only practical effect is to deter action
>by upright people,

There's a name for this, it's called being "paranoid."

>it is a hinderance to the security of the individual.

I hate to just pull a "read this book" on you, but I'm going to do it
anyway.  See, "Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan" by
Buchanan.

If you have something important to contribute perhaps you should write
a book and refute Buchanan instead of the mental masturabation called
Usenet.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:17:16 GMT

In article <w1ysXB2w165w@netlink.cts.com> tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>Well, I can't accept that capitalism does work.  The post-WWII boom is an 
>exception that is now ending.

An exception? Gee, I guess the last several hundred years just
didn't happen. 

>The purer the capitalism, the wider the economic boom and 
>bust cycle, and the cycle can become infinitely long.  

I can confidently state that you don't have a shred of evidence
to back this up.

>There is no reason 
>capitalism and Anarchism are mutually exclusive - and they both cannot 
>work over a period of time. 

Ah, so you aren't even an anarchist. So what's yr point?
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Very stupid"
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:1157 talk.politics.guns:27061
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Anarchy
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:26:22 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> Now, I'm not an anarchist-socialist like most of the people you've
> been conversing with -- I'm an anarchocapitalist. I believe that
> security services can and should be provided by the free market. As
> evidence that this can work, I cite the case of Iceland, which
> operated perfectly well with only private methods for settling
> disputes from ~900AD to 1252AD, which is longer than any western
> government I know of has lasted.
Hey Bjorn, gimme some o' yer mead.
No.
Ouch!  Oww! Hey, stop that! Oof!
Take that!
Ow! My eye!
And so, young Olaf the Mad Dog became One-Eyed Olaf.
Perfect market forces at work.
> 
> Now, the arguments for why I believe the private sector could provide
> security services and the evidence for it are rather long and
> involved, but I'm happy to go into great detail if you like. I could,
> for instance, repost an article I posted recently to
> alt.philosophy.objectivism on this very subject.

An Objectivist!  My god, turn off the Rush Limbarf show and come out of 
the dark!  Reagan is gone!  How can you not sneeze after reading those 
dusty old books?  Haven't you heard?  Pure free markets can oscillate 
with an infinitely long period!  Stuck at the bottom!  Keynes!  Read him 
and weap!

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
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: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:00:54 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan21120514@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>It is not an impossible state to achieve if you have a individuals
>who are willing to try.

But how many individuals who are unwilling to try are necessary to ruin it?

>Humanity has changed over time. Practices
>of the Romans seem barbaric to us now. Things have changed in a
>random way however. If you don't feel humans are capable of taking
>control of their own destiny then I suppose you are intellectually
>impaired to seeing how anarchy could ever work.

I appreciate your optimism.  It seems that in the long run humanity _as a
whole_ raises its moral standards.  It also seems, sometimes, like this process
is going bass ackwards.

...

>Oh, please! First democracy and anarchy are political theories.
>Capitalism and communism are economic theories. Today we have 
>the Peoples Republic of China(which people call communist but that is
>a misnomer) which is a socialistic totalitarian goverment that
>employs the free market(or is starting to.).

China has what's called a "mixed system"... Communism (note case) to provide a
framework for draconian authority, and free market competition to keep labor's
expectations humble.  China's foot in the door of the American (or any other)
market is cheap labor, period.  The relationship between big-c Communism and
big-d Darwinism there seems to be very symbiotic in spite of the obvious
contradictions.

America has a much more palatable (hence more rebellion-proof) mixed-system
which seems to combine a relatively benign form of capitalism and a largely
symbolic democracy.  And if you believe that Washington pulls Wall Street's
strings, or that scholars and journalists constitute a power elite, I have some
second-hand toilet paper for sale...

>The original Libertarians
>were Anarchist who prefered collectivism or communism as a economic
>system. Well the results are in Communism does not work! Capitalism
>does work! They is no reason why Anarchism and capitalism are mutually
>exclusive.

I would guess that the original libertarians were pre-humans to whom it
occurred to resent the effects of sociobiological reality (dominance/submission
as species traits) on their lives.

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

Boys, you have ALL been selected to LEAVE th' PLANET in 15 minutes!!
				-- Zippy the Pinhead
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Iceland
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:32:56 GMT

In article <johansc-270193201657@hf-mac93.uio.no> johansc@hedda.uio.no (Johan Schimanski) writes:
>The Icelandic system also produced a lot of good literature in a
>Dostoevskyan vein, all about insoluble family feuds and the fun people had
>when they got killed dead. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Sigh, I think this is the second time in the last few days and
the third time in the last couple of weeks. Maybe we need an
Iceland FAQ. 1/2 :)

The Icelandic society was less violent than its contemporaries.
Writers try to write about interesting things. Apparently most
people find violence more interesting than peace. Look in any
history book. They talk about wars so much and how fun people
had getting hacked up for king so-and-so. Makes you think,
doesn't it? 

It is not important that the Icelandic sagas are violent. What
is important is that the violence is always on a small scale and
spread out chronologically.

>(the whole thing was based on slavery anyway).

Your whole argument is based on fantasy.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "I like Concord"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 06:10:58 GMT

[Note Folloup-To:]

In article <1993Jan21.184743.23973@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>Government is a valid institution. And protecting peoples rights is
>a valid function of government.

Protecting people's rights is a valid function of anyone. No
government required!

If I were a moralist I would say that it is the state's claim
that it has a monopoly on the rights protection racket that is
immoral.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Five six idiotic"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:43:44 GMT

n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>	As many proponants of anarchy have admitted that it is an
>impossible state to achieve, or one that would only last the 5 seconds
>it takes for some genius to think of dominating others, it is a cartoon-
>only concept.   Some have gone so far as to say it _would_ work, if only
>humanity could change, if only nobody would think of that.

I would not argue any of these things -- but then again I am a
capitalist anarchist and not a socialist anarchist. Among other
things, I'd point out that anarchy has been tried and has worked --
Iceland from 900AD to 1252AD had no government and operated none the
less. It was a fairly violent society compared to what we are used to,
but was not violent compared to most of Europe, which is a fairer
comparison. Until the Norwegians did their best to take Iceland over
in the 13th century (and they had far more resources at their
disposal), Iceland operated very nicely with only private enforcement
of the law. (By the way, law does not imply government).

It is unfortunately very difficult to explain to people how such
mechanisms would work and why they are practical because people have
very fixed paradigms in their minds of how things should be done --
imagine trying to explain to a resident of Moscow 20 years ago the
notion that bread shortages would disappear if they only had private
property. However, I can take the time and explain some
anarchocapitalist theory if anyone is interested. 

I assure you that the ideas I espouse require no change in human
nature and are easy to understand provided you understand the notion
of free markets thoroughly.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Anarchy in Iceland
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:21:56 GMT

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>
>>Now, I'm not an anarchist-socialist like most of the people you've
>>been conversing with -- I'm an anarchocapitalist. I believe that
>>security services can and should be provided by the free market. As
>>evidence that this can work, I cite the case of Iceland, which
>>operated perfectly well with only private methods for settling
>>disputes from ~900AD to 1252AD, which is longer than any western
>>government I know of has lasted.
>
>	You might want to look into an "allthing," which is roughly
>a glorified island meeting, where disagreements are settled by right
>of arms (ie: beat each other up until one quits or dies), or by general
>concensus.  As I understand, a chieftan-type moderated the thing.
>The Norse model has been remarkably close to a Constitutional Monarchy
>than an anarchy for a good deal of its history.

I think you exagerate. The Icelanders had no chieftain or king, so the
"constitutional monarchy" bit isn't accurate. The allthing was largely
an annual fair, but it did have substantial legal features -- the
lawspeaker recited one third of the customary legal code at each
allthing, courts met, etc. Trial by combat was not an Icelandic
custom, although the settlement of some disputes by arms did occur as
the courts were powerless to do more than declare someone an outlaw if
they failed to comply with the law. It was not precisely anarchy as I
would envision it, but the major features, including a purely civil
legal system and private enforcement of the law, were all there.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: What is Anarchism
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 11:34:57 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan22103010@macro.bu.edu>, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>People who do learn do it on there own. If the state
>has your attention for 12 years, isn't it concievable that the
>most valuable thing they could teach you is how to manage your
>money and how to put it to work for you? TEACH CAPITALISM from
>day one kindergarden.

I am 100% against compulsory education and I think that the
probability that a statist education system would do anything
like this is about nil. However I think it is generally a good
idea to "teach capitalism" from a very young age. Not
"doctrinaire capitalism", as Walter Lee claimed, but practical
information and experience to help one manage one's resources. 
Unless one takes seriously the (utopian/fantastic) idea that
property can be abolished then I think one has to admit that
this would be a step in the direction of self government.

It appears to me that the reason (or at least a very big reason)
that some people here find capitalism distasteful is that they
find it leads to others controlling their lives. The purpose of
teaching about capitalism is to give people control of their own
lives. It is true that someone with no property and not a clue
about how to get any does not have much control over their
life. The system seems 'evil' because one can never get ahead,
while others do. Well, if one doesn't have a clue about how to
get ahead, how does one expect to get ahead?

I wonder if any school uses Karl Hess' _Capitalism for Kids_ as
a text? (yeah, right)
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Seven eight seat bee sate!"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy