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

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Childers.Paula AT epamail.epa.gov wrote:
> 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.

Well, I used to be a Republican, and I grew out of that. :-)


> 
> 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.  

I think that most people who think that, misunderstand what we are
proposing, or take an overly pessismistic view of human nature.  If
"civil society" were voluntary, most everybody would still choose
to participate, IMO.  All I'm suggesting is basically to legalize
competition.  If your society becomes flawed, let us (whoever that
means) form our own "society" without interference, force, or
coercion.

Within those - voluntarily joined - systems, I don't see any
good reason not to continue to use systems like representative
government and democratic voting.  Just give any political subunit
(down to the individual) the right to secede from any larger
political sub-unit.  If you join voluntarily, you should be
able to leave voluntarily.



> 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?) 

The thing is, I'm not proposing that you *must* deal with any of that.
I've said, I propose a framework on top of which you - and people who
feel as you do - can build whatever construct they want, in order
to deal with those kinds of issues.  All I ask is that you don't
try to force me to participate against my will.   And if your
ideas and your system are sound, I'll probably participate willingly.


> 
> 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.

I haven't suggested that "civil society" isn't needed.  What I'm really
talking about is more along the lines of defining what we mean by
"civil society" and how it's constructed.


> 
> 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.

Actually I think it's more like "because their infrastructure was bombed
to hell and back by US bombs" but whatever...


TTYL,


Phil

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD4DBQFGnOG0dkzqYMZbBuwRAimtAJQNAMEnBaBUN6NOfhFs2yw4k+FfAJ9dU0Cq
pFJFxD66sqqN7nMQ/7oEkA==
=Kbhk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard