[ExI] anarchy

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2016 12:22 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why
couldn't
>> people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against
this?
>
> Said coordination is a government.

No, it's not -- unless you're going to define government so broadly that
you helping stop someone from being raped makes me a government, in which
case, what the hell would anarchy be? It would seem you're sneaking in a
definition of anarchy as completely social atomism. Fine, if that's your
stipulated definition, but then that's not what any actual anarchist,
especially of the libertarian sort, has ever argued for.

> It involves some people saying what
> others should do, rather than everyone just doing whatever they want.

People can't do whatever they want under anarchy. After all, by the two
(not sole) principles I offered, no one has a right to rule anyone else.
What that means in practice is you can't treat others as tools -- raping,
killing, enslaving, stealing from, etc. Those would mean ruling over
someone else, no?

> If
> the others refuse to do what they are told, then by definition they are
not
> coordinating.

Not at all. In many, probably most social coordinations, there's no one
telling someone else what to do. I'm walking down the sidewalk, for
instance, and someone is coming down the same sidewalk. I move to my right
and they to theirs. No one told us what to do here. There wasn't a cop
involved or no session of the legislature debated and legislated on this.

Regards,

Dan
  My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from:
http://mybook.to/Gurlitt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160606/df01fca5/attachment.html>