From: ppi@amug.org
Date: Thu Feb 17 2000 - 15:42:31 MST
I think a Deep Anarchy list is a very good idea provided
there is an interest in such a list. Even if it starts out
relatively small, it could still be useful.
>A main point of Max's article is that we already have anarchy,
>so there's no need to establish it. To me it seems that coercive
>political systems are complete hoaxes. Deep Anarchy is the
>view you have once you recognize the deep nature of coercive
>political systems.
Max's idea in the Deep Anarchy article ("that we already
live in an anarchy") is a very important insight. Just because
some individuals masquerade as "government" (so-called)
doesn't change that fact (that we already have anarchy).
Mark Lindsay
At 2/17/00, upgrade wrote:
>At 02:29 AM 2/17/00 -0500, "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net> wrote:
>>upgrade wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> > I'm toying with the idea of setting up a Deep Anarchy list.
>> > (In DEEP ANARCHY -- AN ELIMINATIVIST VIEW OF
>> > "THE STATE" <http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07d.shtml>,
>> > Max coined the term "Deep Anarchy.")
>> >
>> > According to Max T. O'Connor (aka Max More):
>> > <snip> "Deep Anarchy" is the view that results from these
>> > thoughts; it is the idea that we already live in an anarchy."
>
>>Its not totally a bad idea. Considering how much libertarian thought has
>>been shaping politics the last ten years, it does seem to be working a
>>bit. The problem is that in joining the establishment, your goals become
>>diluted, and the people wind up with a sweetened, more palatable and
>>managable version. Witness how socialists in the democratic parties of
>>the west were able to turn former laissez faire economies into compound
>>economies of mercantilists using socialist governments to manage and
>>dopify the people, and to allow and organize the externalization of
>>mercantilists costs. Because of this, there was never a revolution of
>>the proletariat in the west.
>>To establish a true anarchy a 'Deep' anarchy, the nihilistic methods
>>must be used as taught in the ChiCom schools.
>
>A main point of Max's article is that we already have anarchy,
>so there's no need to establish it. To me it seems that coercive
>political systems are complete hoaxes. Deep Anarchy is the
>view you have once you recognize the deep nature of coercive
>political systems.
>
>>Entice the establishment
>>of powerful police forces and the abuse or negation of civil rights.
>>Atrocities ensue which trigger further rebellion and calls for more
>>fascism. There are key points where events can be interrupted to
>>establish either fascist totalitarianism or anarchy, and the key to
>>which way the population chooses all depends on the propaganda war.
>>
>>This does not necessarily need to mean actual physical violence in the
>>real world. Since more of the economy is moving to the net, cyber
>>terrorism takes on new power, as seen by events in the last few weeks
>>with DoS attacks on prime dot com websites. The problem is figuring out
>>how to entice opressive measures by government over the net. It
>>currently seems that the government is resisting the reprisal/repression
>>urge.
>
>The purpose of the list probably needs to include exploring
>what strategies and tactics may be necessary to persuade
>people to adopt the Deep-Anarchy view. And once people
>have the Deep-Anarchy view, what freedom strategies should
>they practice?
>
>>Anyone who looks at the back seat of my Cherokee knows I at least live
>>in one... ;) I'm not so sure about the rest of you.
>>
>> > The purpose of the list might be to explore the deepest aspects
>> > of coercive political systems, including the possibility that all
>> > current coercive political systems are complete hoaxes.
>
>Maybe, what needs to be looked at and seen is that the
>individuals who masquerade as "government" (so-called)
>are engaged in a gigantic hoax. How can anyone form a
>different conclusion after studying Max's article?
>
>> > Anyone interested?
>>
>>Certainly, so long as it doesn't get inundated by anarchists who are
>>closet socialists (the whole Eugene gang).
>>
>>Mike Lorrey
>
>Initially the list could be promoted to libertarian and
>anarcho-capitalist types. After it has 100+ subscribers
>and has been going for a month or two, it could also
>be promoted to other anarchists.
>
>Maybe means can be found to bridge the gap between
>right and left anarchists. In an anarcho-capitalist world
>with property rights, left anarchists can acquire property
>and can, on that property, implement socialist systems.
>Provided they don't attempt to coercively impose their
>systems on others, they wouldn't disturb harmony.
>
>The list guidelines could spell out how right and left
>anarchists might coexist harmoniously. Attacks between
>right and left anarchists would be discouraged. The list
>would be moderated.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:26:53 MST