[ExI] anarchy

[Dave Sill]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant
> something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate
> -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks
> down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the
> favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun
> you down.
>

Yes, exactly. Like a social contract that is truly optional, rather than
forced down your throat.


> Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure
> social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean
> by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's
> not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I
> presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and
> no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer
> too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.)
>

Aren't those equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)?


> My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can
> correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime.
> Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you
> don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the
> security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized.
>

Yeah, or in the case of a closed community, if you don't join and agree to
the rules you don't live there.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160606/8915cd24/attachment.html>