Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov]

What I think is most interesting about this whole discussion is that so
many people apparently think they can change Phil's mind about his
political belief system. I don't think that's possible, unless Phil
himself were to experience something that shook his worldview
significantly enough to open it to change, which I sincerely doubt is
going to be caused by an InterNetWorkers email.

I personally think that both libertarianism and anarchism do not include
an awareness of certain systemic aspects of civil society, or else they
interpret those aspects through a vastly different lens than those of
other forms of governance.  In the words of Winston Churchill, though,
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time."

I, for one, do not wish to live in Phil's world, as it would be way too
much work, to police my own property, deal with my own sewage, put out
my own fires, and/or be constantly having to go to meetings to generate
agreements with my neighbors (or with entrepeneurs) as to who will do
so, and for whom, and for how much money this year or next week or the
next time there's a fire. (What's market value of a fire truck when your
house is aflame?) I enjoy that there's a government to do those things
for me. I enjoy that there's a system of laws upheld by a nation-state,
with a sequence of consequences for law-breakers (including contract
enforcement!), because that way I don't have to worry about all kinds of
stuff that such a stable system provides.  What I *do* have to worry
about is doing my individual part as a citizen, making sure that laws
are just and applied fairly. I need to vote, and participate in
hearings, and educate myself on the issues.  That's quite enough of a
job for most of us in this big complex world.

We could count Phil's viewpoint as a certain success of civil society:
only in a well-functioning society could someone come to the conclusion
that civil society isn't really needed.

The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects;
The next best are loved and praised;
The next are feared;
The next despised:
They have no faith in their people,
And their people become unfaithful to them.
When the best rulers achieve their purpose
Their subjects claim the achievement as their own.
-- Tao Te Ching

To speak of Iraq - even under Hussein's nasty rule, they had a
functioning civil society, with business being conducted and electricity
flowing. The average Iraqi could hold a job, build a business, send kids
to school, turn on a light at night - now, they have a certain new level
of individual freedom, but none of that other stuff, because the
mechanisms of civil society that enabled them to exist have been
destroyed.

And to go rolling all the way back to the "Local Govt Fair Competition
Act," I absolutely think that A.) local governments should be allowed to
step in and use taxes to provide or support the provision of a valuable
community service such as electricity, phone service, or Internet
service, if such a service is not being provided to an adequate level by
private business, but also B.) That no such service provision should be
initiated without the majority support of  those who would be subjected
to the taxation. The test of support could be conducted in several ways,
including open meetings or by vote, but should conform to normal
standards for large community projects, such as the series of community
meetings Durham held in re: the new Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan.

Namaste,
Paula