HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:33:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1993Jan21.154720.4900@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>
>>>Philosophy is about man in the real world.  You can talk about utopia
>>>if you want but it isn't a philosophical discussion.
>>>
>>Sorry.  I thought philosophy was talking about what _ought_ to be, not
>>what _is_ or _will be_.  Anarchy _ought_ to work.  There _ought_ be no
>>murder.  People _ought_ to be able to get along without government.
>
>	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.
>
So?  What's wrong with people changing?  That's the goal of anarchism--
changing the world.  Changing humanity.
If you want realism, though, I admit, you'll have to try somewhere else.

>	Interjecting anarchy into a discussion of what is a good society
>to have (vs democracy, free market, communism, or all the other real-life
>competitors), is exactly analogous to, during a discussion of which car 
>is the best buy, interjecting the comment that a giant flying bird would be 
>an even better vehicle than a car.
>
No, not if the discussion is talking about which society it would be
most _right_ to have.
And so what?  Like I said above...anarchists want to change the world,
and if that means we interrupt a few discussions and waste bandwidth,
then squawk squawk squawk.

>	The topics are both non-sequitors, therefore not relevent to this 
>earth, or any discussion about what might take place on it.
>
No.  It _might_ take place.  See?  When people sit down to discuss politics,
they use words that point directly towards philosophy.  Squawk.  And
philosophy talks about what _ought_ to be.

>>No!  Of course not!  Since when have I been discussing the real world?
>>I have repeatedly said I was not.  I was talking about the way things
>>_ought_ to be.  The Croatians _ought_ to forgive and forget, and so
>
>	Exactly like we _ought_ to prefer using giant flying birds to 
>ride to work in over cars.
>
No, not like that at all.  Squawk!  ;-)

--
***************************************************************************
"I was pleased to be able to answer promptly, and I did.  I said I didn't
 know."----- Mark Twain, _Life on the Mississippi_
Jason "corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Was Here But Isn't Anymore
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: 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: Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:09:27 GMT

In article <Ne1sXB5w165w@netlink.cts.com> tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry) writes:
>> 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.

Perry made a small mistake. Iceland's privately produced legal
system did not work *perfectly*. Of course not. It existed,
therefore it was not a utopia. Joel made a large mistake. The
Icelandic system did work very well. As I have posted about here
before the Icelandic society was less violent than contemporary
societies.

Also the situation Joel describes is prior to any interaction
with the Icelandic legal system. The Icelandic solution is
restitution or outlawry.

Now what I'd really like to see is Walter Lee's solution to this
trivial situation.
--
Mike Linksvayer   mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu   "Very stupid"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:04:04 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee) writes:

> In article <1993Jan21.020203.23661@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium
> 
> ...
> 
> >2. The existence of "law", as interpreted in the Bible does not
> >necessarily mean government.  Everyone has a moral code--acting
> >according to that code is acting according to the "law", regardless
> >of whether the government issues an edict or not.  Anarchic society is
> >not without "law", but the "law" is agreed-upon and largely unspoken.
> 
> Yes!!
> 
> See I Samuel 9:4-9
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.ed
> 
> You may either win your peace or buy it; win it by resistance to evil;
> buy it by compromise with evil.
> 				-- John Ruskin (1819-1900)

Aww, c'mon, the old testament is an extremely violent, eye-for-an-eye 
kind of law.  Hardly anything is Anarchistic until Psalms.  And even the 
most basic illustrations are misinterpreted whether unspoken or not.  
Example:  "Onan spilled his seed upon the ground." Ask anyone, they will 
tell you this is saying you shouldn't masturbate.  Ask an old testament 
scholar and (unless he's a Southern Baptist) he will say it means you 
aren't supposed to practice coitus interruptus as a birth control method 
(referring to "Multiply etc.").  So, let's keep this thread about anarchy 
or Anarchy, and leave the religion to be the opiate of 
alt.talk.masturbate.  Or at least limit talk to attempts at religious 
anarchic societies.  My cousin was in one.  He's all fucked up.

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: cardell@lysator.liu.se (Mikael Cardell)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Looking for a book (anarchist handbook)
Date: 23 Jan 93 11:29:19 GMT
Organization: Lysator ACS at Linkoping University

This book is dangerous, so I advice you to check out other books if
you're interested in things that go boom. The book includes several
errors that might proove somewhat dangerous to your health. Try
reading rec.pyrotechnics instead...

--
mikael cardell <cardell@lysator.liu.se>

          S P U N K  P R E S S
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:1158 talk.politics.guns:27062
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
From: tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:35:32 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
> 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. 
> 
So, now they have bread.  But they can't afford to buy it!  Remember that 
scare tv-ad that said "in a European country in the thirties a loaf of 
bread required a laundry basket full of money!"?   Russia is bound to go 
fascist or repressive communist.  A very bad example on your part.  The 
fixed paradigms are still there...

--                    
INTERNET:  tumidity@netlink.cts.com (Joel Garry)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!tumidity
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
From: cculia@inode.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: ANARCHY IS STUPID
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:42:22 EST
Reply-To: cculia@inode.com
Distribution: world
Organization: inode BBS, NYC's Best Usenet Access (212-679-9146)



  Anarchy is stupid.

          There can never be any such thing as a society without authority or
government.  There will always be people who will try to dominate others, and
who will use their physical or other strengths to their advantage, in order to
obtain their goals.  Think about it.  It's logical.  If you had an AK-47 and
your neighbors had kitchen knives, would you take thier shit?  No.. you'd go
and demand "taxes" from them or whatever you wanted, since you have the power.
 It's part of human nature, and it's impossible to defeat.

  So somebody try to explain to me how the hell anarchy is possible, because I
don't beleive it.

 
... Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
#! rnews 1
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: matta@lclark.edu (Matt Alexander)
Subject: Re: Looking for a book
Organization: Sacajawea's Voice, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:51:55 GMT

In article <1joqu8INN88e@mycella.csv.warwick.ac.uk> 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.

Don't bother, the book is worthless.
The bomb-making techiques are highly unstable, and much more dangerous to
the would-be urban terrorist then anyone else.
This is widely suspected to be the author's original intent.

--- Matt Alexander

    "Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome
    nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I
    hate them!"
	-- Albert Einstein
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 01:26:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.020203.23661@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

...

>2. The existence of "law", as interpreted in the Bible does not
>necessarily mean government.  Everyone has a moral code--acting
>according to that code is acting according to the "law", regardless
>of whether the government issues an edict or not.  Anarchic society is
>not without "law", but the "law" is agreed-upon and largely unspoken.

Yes!!

See I Samuel 9:4-9

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

You may either win your peace or buy it; win it by resistance to evil;
buy it by compromise with evil.
				-- John Ruskin (1819-1900)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
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 19:54:05 GMT

mlinksva@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Linksvayer) writes:
>>>>Sorry.  I thought philosophy was talking about what _ought_ to be, not
>>>>what _is_ or _will be_.  Anarchy _ought_ to work.  There _ought_ be no
>>>>murder.  People _ought_ to be able to get along without government.
>
>Ought schmought. Ought people have wings? Who cares, we can build
>airplanes. Anarchism is not about whining about what 'ought' to
>work, but creating voluntaristic arrangements that *do* work.

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. I've just flamed a lot of socialist anarchists
for claiming I'm not an anarchist -- I'm not about to allow someone to
contend that they aren't anarchists. They are. They are just not your
brand or my brand of anarchist.

We now return to the flame war already in progress.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:28:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.103426.253@infodev.cam.ac.uk>  
ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke) writes:
> In article <1993Jan23.023237.8646@midway.uchicago.edu>,  
sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
> 
> |> An oligarchy?? Similar to the oligarchy of restaurents or grocery  
stores.  
> |> Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the facts.
> 
> 	burger king, wendy, mcdonalds, pizza hut, taco bell...
> 
> 	sainsbury's, tescos, safeway...
> 
> 	they seem to be getting bigger and bigger to me.
> 
> 	andrew
>
There are also many, many more choices to pick from. See how many  
different restuarants or grocery stores there are in a city even a small  
one.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: ajc1@mail.ast.cam.ac.uk (Andrew Cooke)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Organization: Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 10:34:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.023237.8646@midway.uchicago.edu>, sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:

|> An oligarchy?? Similar to the oligarchy of restaurents or grocery stores.  
|> Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the facts.

	burger king, wendy, mcdonalds, pizza hut, taco bell...

	sainsbury's, tescos, safeway...

	they seem to be getting bigger and bigger to me.

	andrew


    andrew cooke                 turning and turning in the widening gyre
    institute of astronomy            the falcon cannot hear the falconer
    cambridge, england          things fall apart, the centre cannot hold
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:1192 talk.politics.guns:27131
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ideality vs. Reality (Was: Anarchy in Somalia)
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:27:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan25134635@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.203358.4655@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>
><So?  What's wrong with people changing?  That's the goal of anarchism--
><changing the world.  Changing humanity.
>
>	Text such as this, in the late 20th Century, makes me nervous.
>	Either the writer has utterly no knowledge of the last, oh,
>	200+ years or is yet another "coercive utopian".
>
>	In either case, the author is treading not towards freedom,
>	but towards totalitarionism.
>
Oh, please!  Did I say "force change"?  Did I?  No!  If I did, I was
temporarily possessed by aliens from Arcturus.  Here's my train of
thought:
1. Anarchism is based, consistently, be it anarchosocialism or
anarchocapitalism (to use neato phrases from another thread), on the
concept of universal cooperation.  Otherwise, individuals or groups
will begin to take away the rights of other individuals or groups.
2. As it currently stands, universal cooperation, even of the most basic
kind, is impossible.  People are either too stupid or too stubborn to
see the advantages of it.
3. Therefore, for anarchy to work, people have to change.
IMHO, the best way for them to change is to really think about what they
are doing to themselves and to each other, to really understand what
freedom means and to realise that they don't need a government to tell them
what to do.
Any anarchist that talks about forcing change on anyone is a self-contradictory
dork.  (Wooooh!  Tough words! ;-)

><If you want realism, though, I admit, you'll have to try somewhere else.
>
>	Huh. These aren't just word games, folks, they are ideas
>	with consequences.
>
No, I was playing word games, actually.  That's all philosophy is.
"They're all we've got to go on."---Stoppard again.

>	The absurd notion that humans are infinitely plastic and can be
>	"molded for their own good" into some sort of "New Human"
>	should, by now, be completely discredited. 
>
Where are these quotes coming from?  Not me, and it certainly doesn't sound
like an anarchist of any kind.
>	That it has not is an indictment of, among other things,
>	modern "education".

Huh?  Yoo callun me stoopid?  :-)


--
*******************************************************************************
"Keep an eye on the species below us...because you never know who may be next."
	----Bertha's Save The Cat Committee (Garrison Keillor)
Jason D. "corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley, Poet, Polymath, Scoundrel.
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Anarchy in Somalia
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:05:14 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu's message of 21 Jan 93 15:47:20 GMT





   corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:

   >>Philosophy is about man in the real world.  You can talk about utopia
   >>if you want but it isn't a philosophical discussion.
   >>
   >Sorry.  I thought philosophy was talking about what _ought_ to be, not
   >what _is_ or _will be_.  Anarchy _ought_ to work.  There _ought_ be no
   >murder.  People _ought_ to be able to get along without government.




   From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)

>	   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.

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

>	   Interjecting anarchy into a discussion of what is a good society
>   to have (vs democracy, free market, communism, or all the other real-life
>   competitors), is exactly analogous to, during a discussion of which car 
>   is the best buy, interjecting the comment that a giant flying bird would be 
>   an even better vehicle than a car.

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.). 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.

>	   The topics are both non-sequitors, therefore not relevent to this 
>   earth, or any discussion about what might take place on it.

The only non-sequitor here is your commentary.

-sjm




--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
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 00:54:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.235312.18675@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

...

>It's not the lack of government which is the source of immorality.
>It's what happens when people realize they can get away with just
>about anything and not be punished for it.  That's the way a lot of
>people are.

Is that the way you are?  Would you misbehave if you realized you could get
away with just about anything and not be punished for it?

...

>You can't have that either.  Gov't is just a big gorilla.  Either he's on
>your side, more or less, or he's on the side of whoever has the most money.
>That's the way the world is.  Accept it and move on or squander your time
>worrying about your utopia.  Suit yourself.

Is having the guerrilla on my side (as opposed to the side of the propertied
elite) a real possibility?  If not, why should I show any allegiance to it?

...

>Do you think anti-gay fanatics would not bash gays violently ?
>
>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.

So accept it, warts and all; but don't expect it to count you as an adult
capable of self-government.  By accepting fear of punishment as your protection
you also accept it as your own moral compass.  Government is NOT a means by
which honest people protect themselves from dishonest people.  It is a
"service" offered by the "profession of arms" (and the financiers who are in a
position to broker that profession) to anyone who is willing to surrender their
individual conscience and accept authority as the standard of right/wrong.

OF COURSE life is relatively dangerous if you don't.  TANSTAAFL!

Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
From: DDFr@Midway.UChicago.Edu (David Friedman)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
Followup-To: alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Chicago Law School
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:30:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.010830.27854@midway.uchicago.edu>,
sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) wrote:

> My apologies, a temporary confusion on my part about authors.The book I  
> had in mind was "Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in  
> Saga Iceland" by William Miller.

Miller certainly has interesting views on the Icelandic legal system. He
is, however, rather hostile to libertarians like myself who view it as an
early version of the sort of institutions we advocate, so I don't think you
can legitimately cite him as a supporter of our position. Jesse Byock, a
historian at UCLA who has written several books on the institutions of saga
period Iceland, holds views on how the institutions worked considerably
closer to mine, although as far as I know he is not a libertarian.

David Friedman
Olin Fellow in Law and Economics
University of Chicago Law School
(312) 702-9589
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy