Re: Question about anarchic systems and natural disasters (fwd)

[Soren <sorens@workmail.com>]

Brown, R Ken wrote:
> 
> > No-one's yet noticed that my Jim's house burning down is a problem for
> his neighbours.  Not just for the fear and distress it causes them but
> because the fire might spread to their houses.  Which is why we have
> fire brigades. And why they are nearly always paid for out of tax.
> Almost the last thing in the world anyone does privately.
> 
> Of course, that applies to cities, not to the country - but cities are
> where it's at.
> 
Tax supported fire brigades are a very recent invention, and are often
still privately run (at least in my neck of the woods).  In the above
circumstance (my [sic] Jim's house), one would have to weigh the
relative risks against the possible rewards.  If Jim is such an assh*le
to live next to, I might be more inclined to soak my own house in the
expectation that Jim will be hitting the road after his house has burned
down.

Given that humans tend to go in for self-organization, there are likely
to be a multitude of societies that naturally form in an anarchy. 
Presumably they would be heavily ghettoized a-la Snow Crash, but there
will always be plenty of room for various stripes of
socialist/neo-fascists to form their own societies.  What they can't do
with impunity, is tell me that I am, ipso facto, a member of their
society.  Undoubtably they would be inclined to try, but in the absence
of a highly organized and militarized support group, in the form of the
'monopoly merchants', they will have a harder time of it.

Personally, I believe that states inevitably arise out of anarchic
assemblages of societies. Chalk it up to human frailty. Where anarchy is
beneficial, is in terminating obsolete state structures in order to
allow newer and (hopefully) more appropriate social structures to form. 
The current form in the US is rather pathetic.  A 'great society' that
has as its paramount goal the perpetuation of a 19th century
hierarchical model for human interaction. I would have said 18th
century, but Abe took care of the restructuring 130 years ago.

In the 19th century, the model for state formation was based upon
geographical limitations. The technologies of the day meant that the
territory you could force to knuckle under was severely constrained.

Starting from scratch today, it would make more sense to create
societies out of like minded individuals from wherever they live on the
planet (and off it?).  The phylums of the Diamond Age are, IMHO, a good
model for this.  This should give the socialists among us great cheer
and hope.  Rather than attempting to coerce all individuals within an
arbitrary geographical region to knuckle under and pay taxes. I would
suggest a good PR and proselytization campaign with the intention of
recruiting good tax-paying and benefit consuming suckers -- er ...
subscribers, wherever they may live.

Its not like this model hasn't been successful in the past, viz: the
Mormons, Scientologists, Roman Catholic Church, Marxism, the Moonies,
Amway, Herbal Life, and certain aspects of the music industry. Think of
it, rather than trying to disenfranchize 50 million north americans,
there exists already a highly indoctrinated group of people in China
(some 2 billion at last count) who would gladly subscribe to your brand
of socialism, even if just to get away from their current model. At the
very least, this would breathe new life back into Radio America. It
would also legitimize the need for US military troops stationed in 100+
locations around the world.  They could be seconded to the IRS to
enforce compliance.

On the other hand, maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe the use of
coercion and force *is* the raisson d'etre for the state.