Slashdot Mirror
The Anarchist in the Library
Basically, the book puts the information battles relating to culture and copyright into a broader context, ranging from Parisian enlightenment cafes through the latest copyright battles to the Zapatistas and Falun Gong. Unlike many recent books that deal with these issues, Siva doesn't approach them from a legal perspective so much as from a political/cultural/media theory basis. But don't let that scare you, the book is as readable as it is wide-ranging.
At its most basic level, The Anarchist in the Library is about control of information, both cultural and political. As Siva says in the last chapter, "This book was supposed to be about entertainment - the battle over control of digital music, text, and video ... But as I researched this new project, the world shifted beneath my feet ... My concerns moved to the regulation and control of all sorts of information, much of it cultural, much of it political." Thus, throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Oligarchy we are all familiar with. It is the traditional, centralized control of information by the few. It is the system that, for the most part, we all grew up with and continues to be the default today. On the other hand, we've all heard of anarchy, but most of us aren't familiar with its deeper meanings and history. Siva helps us to understand anarchy as a serious positive political philosophy, something more than merely a reaction to oligarchy. To his credit, however, Siva fully endorses neither position. His is a course of moderation, avoiding the excesses and pitfalls of both sides.
The other theme that runs throughout the book is that of cynicism. Here Siva contrasts the civically engaged cynicism of the Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, with the narcissistic cynicism of Seinfeld's George Costanza. Why cynicism? In Siva's words, "What could be a more ideal environment for a cynic than cyberspace...?" The question, however, is whether and how we can promote the responsible and humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza. Of course, it sort of depends on how you define rude. To make a point, Diogenes once masturbated in the market square. Says Siva, with tongue in cheek but also a valid point, "And nothing represents the overall nature and substance of the Internet better than masturbating in the marketplace."
Diogenes' zealous humanity is also an especially important consideration of Siva's. Whenever possible, Siva emphasizes consideration of the humane over cold theory. It is this concern with the humane, I think, that draws Siva from engaging with Metallica's issues with P2P to questions of terrorism and networks.
Framed by these themes, Siva proceeds to dig through the many information control issues that have come to the fore these past few years or so. He starts with Peer-to-Peer, of course, and moves through many of the issues constantly showing up in "Your Rights Online" such as MP3s, DeCSS, the broadcast flag, the Phantom Edit and many, many others. The path is not random, however; Siva is demonstrating the reactions between oligarchic control and anarchic response in the creation of culture, and that culture requires, even demands, some anarchy in order to thrive.
From this point, Siva begins to leave the world of digital rights and begins to explore other means of controlling information and culture, such as the subtle, sometimes nearly invisible assumptions made by many international institutions through trade policy and market regulations. The book also discusses how information and cultural controls (such as the PATRIOT Act) grow out of security concerns and fear.
At this point in the book, some readers who might have been nodding along in agreement so far may begin to disagree with some of the points Siva makes, as he takes on the WTO riots, "Techno-Libertarianism," and the war in Iraq. But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground.
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary. Without giving specific answers, Siva argues for approaching problems from a particular perspective: with engaged, humane cynicism and a commitment to civic republicanism, both within and without our borders. It is a perspective well worth reading about.
[Full disclosure: I've met Siva a couple of times at conferences and corresponded with him by email on occasion. I would consider him a friend in the fight against copyright maximalism.]
You can purchase The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews. To see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
"How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System"
Please, the use of such crap metaphors just loses credibility on a very important issue. This is just a few steps up from
"How teh copyrights r0x0r j00r b0x0r!!!one"
humane cynicism of Diogenes vs. the shallow, rude and selfish cynicism of Costanza
Ummm, this means that Seinfeld was right to live across from Kramer, right?
Nice to see a more nuanced definition of anarchy than we usually get in the mainstream news. For example, with the political conventions almost upon us, and protests scheduled for each, watch how often the mainstream press managed to slip in the word "anarchists" to describe some of the protestors, with the implication that anarchists are only interested in causing destruction.
In fact, here on /., we are all anarchists (well, other than the Microsoft toadies and PR people and the like). We don't want centralized control of information, but rather a free flow of ideas. Whoa, dude, like that makes us like anarchists or something! Relax, doesn't mean you're going to throw a brick through a Starbucks windows. Real anarchists don't do such destructive acts. That's the job of undercover police officers trying to make protestors look bad (I joke, I joke, such a thing could never, ever happen, huh?)
So where can I download it?
Because proper tea is theft!
So it's all kind of like the old TV show "Get Smart", where Max and 99 work for CONTROL and the bad guys are K.A.O.S.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary.
Ok, I know that to elaborate on this one should read the fine book, anyway: the problem is not whether information and culture should be controlled, but the fact that in modern world such control Cannot Be Achieved without artificial barriers imposed to the people. Most people resent that and they are right.
In other words, one thing is the government censoring the press and the tv, but censoring internet access and fruition is different. It's more personal, like revoking freedom of speech.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Translation: My original idea didn't sell to the publisher
"In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary"???
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You know, I feel insulted. That's a perfectly legitimate Hindu name. There's tens of thousands of Indians in New York, and in the tech field for that matter. Don't be so culturally apathetic.
Oh, yeah. Sure it does.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
...throughout the book, Siva contrasts two very different regimes of information control: oligarchy and anarchy.
Perhaps this is explained in the book, but I don't think it's obvious how anarchy is a "regime of information control."
If you have that messy sort of anarchy - the type that usually just means no central authority in what people still want to consider a state - then it's not really the anarchy that's controlling your information, it's the control structures that have taken hold in the absence of central power.
This is probably just a case of lazy writing, but I wish there were an explanation of what the reviewer meant here.
This Like That - fun with words!
This looks good enough to read. I put it on hold from my local library. Too bad they dont have any good technical books there.
M$ Lawyer: But `gcc
One thing that all these so-called intellectuals fail to take into account in their calls for revolution, is the fact that authors - people who actually take the time to sit down and write, for their readers, something worth reading - have a right to not have their works consistently and persistently changed.
... at the same time ensuring that persistent, consistent, alteration is the only constant.
... Intellectuals discussing 'property of intelligence' rights ought to factor that a lot more than they do. I didn't walk away from "The Anarchist In the Library" with anything more than yet-another dialectic view that 'the only true alternative to something is its opposite'.
The Natural Universe already takes its toll on every single word. Entropy is a tempest. As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
So far, technology has produced the paradox that it is simultaneously capable of reproducing things, perfectly, and guarantee'ing their 'sameness'
People who have something to say, have a right to be heard. That right includes the stipulation that, if you are relaying what someone has to say about something, to someone else, you have a responsibility not to alter that work.
Its an absolute, and we all know how impossible they can be, but change for the sake of change is destructive
And we know how tired a philosophical stance that is. Booo---orring... Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
If you can't put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you. Books, music, poetry, code, you name it. Makes no difference. Like the air that we breathe, once you've released it, it belongs to nobody and everybody.
Just wondering.
John Kerry is a Joke!
but how do you pronounce this guys name?
Seriously now. I just want to know.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
You fell for a troll. This makes you the bad guy.
If you can't put a fence around it or put chains on it, it does not belong to you.
Actually according to anarchist ideology "all private property is theft" including buildings, land, machinery, etc.
"But the book is no thoughtless, radical polemic; it seeks a moderate, well-articulated and researched middle ground."
Looks someone has been eating up those top-down memes with a spoon! And a big spoon, too!
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
He may be an anonymous coward, but he's right. Didn't y'all's mammas tell you "we have rules for a reason"?
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
One of the more interesting aspects of Libertarian politics is a dedication to the principles of the constitution of the US, the Declaration of Independence, and other such things. As "The Importance Of" points out, this is a middle ground.
The original copyright and patent, for example, was enacted for only a limited time. This bears little resemblance to todays unlimited copyright. The abuse is based on the fact that politicians have only one motivation: Election. They sell law to the highest bidder.
This looks like a good book, and I hope to find a pirate e-version on the P2P networks soon.
(oh no, I'd never do that. really.)
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Actually according to anarchist ideology "all private property is theft" including buildings, land, machinery, etc.
In a deep sense, I agree. The earth has been around for billions of years before humans showed up. Nobody can claim ownership rights to the land. However, for the sake of getting along, I think the land should be divided, not for a price, but for an inheritance for us, our children and their children. After all, we are territorial animals.
Siva (Shiva)
It should be noted that the philosophical cynicism of the old Greeks has very little in common with the ironical and misanthropical sort of cynicism we think of these days. It's the same word, but a very different concept.
Philosophical cynicism was based on a doctrine of self control and asceticism. George Costanza's sort of cynisism is completely unrelated, and not philosophical at all -- it's just an attitude. Contrasting these seem pointless to me, but I haven't read the book. Diogenes was a funny guy, though.
Thanks.
-A lowly non-intellectual.
I never suggested any crime. Lots of authors release free ebooks these days. I don't think that's an unreasonable request to make of someone who seems to support the freedom of informationas much as this guy. Mr. Vaidhyanathan submitted a great friend-of-the-court brief in support of Emmanuel Goldstien and 2600back in 2000, so I figured the guy'd be nice enough to put his book out for open electro distro, perhaps like Bean does.
Oops, my bad, I meant Baen, of course, not bean.
I'm an author (published several magazine articles, have completed my first book, looking for an agent to represent me now), and I don't agree with your statement. Yes, if I decide to place my novel on the Web, I don't want someone to alter it and claim that this is the original work. But I'm well aware that my book will find its way all over the Net, and will get modified and turned into slash fiction and all sorts of things that would make my mind boggle. And you know what? That's if I'm lucky. I'm I'm unlucky (or untalented), my book will be ignored.
So as long as my book remains in its original form in my possession, I'm cool with fans doing whatever they want with the copies they have in their possession. Just don't pass it off as my work, or try to intercept any profit I might be lucky enough to have coming my way. But in the information world, every work is going to be constantly changed and altered by the world at large. And boy am I glad for that intellectual inspiration. The one thing I would hate to see is a stagnant pool of static ideas.
Oh yeah, anyone know of a good agent? :)
It seems in today's society most people think almost everything their neighbor does infringes on their rights. All the hot button issues such as gay marriage, drug use, protesting the war, etc. Not to mention inane things like painting your house an un-approved color.
"Infringes" to me means I do physical harm to you or your property. Thus, I would say you can use all the drugs you want, just dont get behind the wheel. Either we realize that freedom means leave your neighbor alone, even if he makes choices you dont agree with, or we live in an orwellian world where public opinion is dictated from on high, and independant thought is no longer allowed. The pendulum swings back and forth
between these extremes, and I would rather live in the former than the latter world.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
One of the errors I often see is people confusing "anarchy" with "chaos". They two do not equate. There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos. Anarchy is simply the individual choosing rather than having those choices made for them.
h y.htm).
In the real world, there's little difference. Sooner or later, someone will make a choice that relieves you of a choice-- robbery, rape, murder, etc.
Larry Niven wrote an excellent short story on this, called Cloak of Anarchy (http://www.larryniven.org/stories/cloak_of_anarc
One could argue what point Mr. Niven was trying to make, but when I read it, I was well into being an anarchist, and that story started me on the road out.
Here is an interesting paradox.
A large segment of the population believes that there should be no control over flows of money in the markets. These people are known as laisser-faire capitalists or Libertarians. Many of these seem to have taken over a large wing of the Republican Party.
The interesting paradox is that these same people, Libertarians morphed into Republicans, also believe at one and the same time that there should be strict control over culture, ideas, and religious beliefs.
So, isn't it quite a contradiction that these same people can at the same time believe in strict control over culture and ideas, but no control over money and the physical property (and political power) that money can buy?!
Isn't this both bad Libertarianism and bad Republicanism?!
1. The thoughtless comment was not in reference to the the ideas themselves, but rather the delivery of the message. You could have deduced that from the context fool.
2. People are sheep, radicals included. I often hear my friends preach chomsky and prudhorn. I recall asking one of them his opinion on 9/11. His reply "well I need to get the real news from Chomsky."
"radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think"
I disagree. I think the only people that are truly thinking are the moderates.
The radicals feed upon their own social alienation and determine that society is wrong and needs to be corrected. They take hold of an issue (it doesn't seem to matter which, so long as they can seem justified) and inflate it at the expense of all the issues surrounding it. They don't focus on the practical issues surrounding it, or discuss a reasonable solution. A radical is just someone who, just once thought outside the program and then, taking that result as a mantra, elevated it in place of god, hence becoming just as fanatical as the reactionaries.
Reactionaries are pretty much identical to the radicals, except they focus on different issues. They tend to focus on making things good like they "used to be" rather than relying on the abstract idealism of the radicals. They justify themselves by inflating the past at the expense of the present.
Then you have the sheeple. They are the primary reservoir for the radicals and reactionaries. These are the people that don't think, have never thought, but like things as they are.
Finally you have moderates. The moderates set the middle ground. (If this seems like a recursive definition, it's because it kindof is, in the same way as A=A+1 is in C). These are the people that actually think. They look at the ideas of the radicals and reactionaries and analyze their ideas, but avoid fanaticism by focusing on practical aspects (This is not to say they don't think of ideas for themselves, but those aren't as noticeable).
Despite the above description's severe rhetorical, theoretical and practical flaws I thought it might offer a different perspective.
In summary:
Who is the real thinker: the man who upon eyeing a pit of snakes leaps away as far as possible or the man who upon sees the pit, but also sees the abyss on the other side and avoids both.
How very interesting. Can you explain how crime happens, then, in such ordered societies as New York City, London, and Chicago?
I submit that chaos happens anyway, just like proton decay. It is the vast majority of us who are peaceful and respectful of others that end up paying the price of such "order" as drug prohibition, income tax and elimination of Habeas Corpus.
All for our own good, of course.
The Austrian School of Economics philosophers and Nobel Lauriates point out that it requires government to create lawlessness, since the majority of individuals tend to come together to create order, rather than chaos. It follows that the overwhelming majority of private uses of firearms are in preventing crime. Spontaneous Order.
In the real world, the difference is simply one of choice.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Oh, sorry, just to comment on your last sentence, I think you mean you were on your way to becoming one of those people who revel in chaos, like the ones who violently protest WTO meetings.
Maybe a good middle ground, like Libertarianism, would suit both your desire for choice and your desire for peaceful institutions.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822
Don't, It was an AC trying to get a rise.
Not really worthy of an actual insult.
"There's tens of thousands of Indians in New York.."
I thought we gave them some beads for the place?
See, now thats funny.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
She was shot in the back, as she was driving away from the officer in her SUV. He was in no way threatened - other than resisting arrest, and leaving the scene of a crime - how was his life in danger to justify shooting the suspect (remember, innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers) in the back?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Keep in mind that often times the authors of books have little to no control over the subtitles that are chosen for their books by the publisher.
The right to be extends to authors. If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
You have no such right.
Anyone anywhere can infer that you said X or claimed Y, and no amount of legislation can prevent that. The fundamental process of thought is one that involves taking the thoughts of others as a base for which to build new ideas. In any universe in which you are not the only person your wish is impossible.
If you want people to get your exact message without the slightest alteration, then take responsibility and cryptographically sign it.
And then I realized I'd totally mis-read the word, "Anarchist".
-FL
Back when they were actual cards, of course. ;-)
Now that's anarchy!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Have you realized that open source is anarchistic?
--Steels
"That's the job of undercover police officers trying to make protestors look bad (I joke, I joke, such a thing could never, ever happen, huh?)"
you mean, like this picture of the undercover agitator who was caught at Bush's inauguration? http://www.civil-rights.net/
"If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large."
Well, up until a few hundred years ago when cheap reproduction technology become available, that wasn't even feasible. Stories and news were passed from mouth to ear, and every story changes with the teller and the telling. Only in the era of mass-production have the same exact words been ABLE to be heard by a multitude of people. I don't see how you can claim as an inherent right, something that is a technological contrivance.
"People who have something to say, have a right to be heard."
I have no idea where you got this notion. Just as your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, your right to speak ends at my right to ignore you. You have no claim on my attention, I can choose to give it to you or not. You most certainly do NOT have a right to heard.
You're a moron.
Bring on the real intellectuals, the ones who are capable of a little more than just pedantic materialism
But that would be *gasp* un-scientific and therefore "irrational".
As human beings, if there is one thing that our cultures has produced, is the evident desire to be something.
If I have published something, I have a right to not have that thing be constantly changed and altered by the world at large.
If "being" is to be strived for, how can it also be a basic/inalienable right? Isn't it more appropriate that this write of non-change be contingent, perhaps even earned?
Did you know that there is a real life anarchist librarians network?
= 04 /07/22/4101169
http://www.infoshop.org/library2/
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story
For those who are not aware, Siva Vaidhyanathan is a very common name in India!
...then I say bring it on! Hardware copy protection? That's it? That's the genius plan that's going to stop us from doing what we want with our files? Whatever. If we can use paint and pencils to FORCE a 2.0Ghz Processor clock to 3.1Ghz, then I'll be damned if we can't disable some inane hardware function.
RTFM
You're slow on cynicism, arent you? :-)
More than mere navel gazing.
Look, radicals are just about the only humans who actually DO think; everyone else just outputs a program. Well, that may be a little overbroad, but that is the gist of it.....
... and you're basically saying they're "thinking" and nobody else is ...
A little overbroad?
That's funny, there are some religous radicals out there who blew up some large buildings somewhere.. they thought god really wanted them to I guess. Or so someone told them.
Care to clarify what you mean by "radical" now?
Ya see, because one could say those same radicals were just outputing a program as well. So even if you were correct, the definition of "radical" is completely relative and your statement is worthless anyway.
If you want to know who the radicals are, look at those who can paint the world completely in black or white. These are people who blind themselves to the opposition as a matter of pride. They are right and there is nothing you can say to change their mind. These people, who see eachother as radicals and who you paint as the "real thinkers" of society, are the mindless drones.
Take someone who sees both sides of an issue. Someone who realizes that matters of importance are usually extremely complex and sees it all as a shade of grey. Those are the thinkers out there. And they're not usually considered radical, they're just "on the fence" and are usually ignored.
There is no assumption of disorder or destruction with anarchy, unlike chaos.
Again with the spoon-feeding... Chaos in not destructive, but rather causes creation. The original Greek word had the meaning of "chasm", or "void", but today it is more commonly (mis)used to describe dis-order. Yet disorder is not destructive either, and is often a source of inspiration.
Am I full of shit? Read the Principia Discordia and see if it destroys or inspires you. I should know it is the latter, as I am both an anarchist and a Discordianist.
All rites reversed 2010
Well, while Libertarians have been described as "Republicans who smoke dope", conflating the two is not appropriate. While some "Libertarians" - such as Representative Ron Paul - have subsequently become Republicans while retaining SOME Libertarian outlooks, most Republicans have nothing to do with Libertarianism.
Republicans are "conservatives" (in the United States sense - in Europe they would be referred to as "liberals"), not "Libertarians". They are also not "laissez-faire" - they are "capitalists" - or even more precisely "state capitalists". They believe that capitalists should control the state and the state should control everybody who isn't a capitalist. This is similar to Hitler's view that the superior man should control the state, not the reverse.
Republicans also believe that social control is necessary. Libertarians invariably do not (in most cases.)
Therefore there is no "paradox". As usual, what seems to be a "paradox" is merely a misperception.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"there are some religous radicals out there who blew up some large buildings somewhere"
Are you referring to Bush here?
Otherwise we're talking a meaningless point here. You can have "moderates" who are "moderate" because they don't have the nerve to actually ask the important questions. You can have "radicals" who are simply brain-washed, as you correctly point out.
The issue is not whether you are "radical" or "moderate" but whether you can see what is in front of your nose AND make reasoned judgements about what isn't.
Whether you are "radical" or "moderate" is a social distinction which is irrelevant to whether you are CORRECT or not.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
it requires government to create lawlessness
Of course it does; you can't have lawlessness without laws.
You have to ask yourself, why are these senators making up these stupid laws? It has to come down to funding of their campaigns or money in some other form. What we need is an "induce" law that comes down on senators that are induced to introduce bills based on dubious and corrupt intentions.
That was sarcasm, not cynisism, I'm afraid.
Inheritance is key to one of the biggest problems with land ownership.
As a thought experiment, most people wouldn't mind a colony of settlers dividing up land among themselves, working on it and cultivating it.
What a lot of us do mind is what arises several generations later.
Through marriages, inheritance and business deals, the land patches have consolidated and are owned by a few powerful owners. Peasants have next to no choice but to go work on the land that someone else "owns", and recieve but a portion of what they've worked for.
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
Republicans are "conservatives" (in the United States sense - in Europe they would be referred to as "liberals")
Easy on the crack pipe there buddy - in Europe, Republicans would be defined somewhere between conservative and fascist. Democrats would fall between liberal and conservative. You don't have any socialists since they all fled to Canada a long time ago.
need a free COBOL editor for Windows?
[sarcasm]yeah... because people will obviously follow the 'fair' rules.[/sarcasm]
The original poster said people on slashdot are anarchists. Not exactly. Sure, users of this site are given a fair amount of control over things, but there are still editors who set hard rules that we all abide by. You can't post more than once within x number of seconds, not everyone can post stories, not everyone can mod a message up/down, and there's the karma system. These rules aren't 'just informed about', they're coded. Why? ...because 'just informing about' them wouldn't make them followed. And I, for one, am glad for these rules.
Now, even talking about 'fair rules' brings up one of the real sticking-points for anarchy. Dintchyalls mammas tell you 'life isn't fair'? Yeah, I hated it when I was a kid, too, but now I realize. I understand that the real force of that statement is that everyone has a different view of what's fair, so what you think is 'fair' just isn't going to happen all the time, or if it did, it would be at the cost of what other people think is fair.
Now as for the codification of rules... If we don't codify them, how will we know when someone breaks them? Who decides? How do you decide who decides? How do you come to an agreement on who decides who decides? How do you come to an agreement on how you agree? Eh... it sounds silly, but for large groups of people, you're gonna need rules for those decisions, or people will be crying that "it's not fair".
People will always disagree on what's fair and good, and, in fact, what's fair and good for one person might not be fair and good for another. You'll need to settle disagreements, which always, eventually, comes down to rules, if enough people agreeing to follow them, or war, and whoever wins wins. Or both.
So there's your anarchy- people will start to fall into groups with rules, or people at war with each other, or groups with rules at war with each other. In fact, *gasp*! one might even say that that is how we find ourselves in our current state. I live with a bunch of people who have, over time, found a set of rules that allow us to live rather peaceably with each other, and this group, in turn, has rules that allow it to live rather peaceably with other groups. These rules are more codified in some situations than others, as needed. When we can't agree on rules, we sometimes find ourselves in a state of war with other groups. There you have it! The world is in a perfectly functioning anarchy! Insofar as there is such a thing, I mean...
I just read your journal entry with the essay about patents and wanted to point out a few things. You seem to have comments turned off for your journal entries and a dummy email address so any suggestions for how to do it as this thread isn't really the place...
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
In this sense of these words, American Republicans would perhaps be considered reactionary or liberal, or maybe even radical, but most likely not conservative. I don't think there are many conservatives in America.
However, American politics has attached other meanings to these words (I don't know where it came from, so maybe Europeans have the same sense now?). Americans somehow think that there are only two brands of thought, Conservative and Liberal, which are synonymous with Republican and Democrat, respectively. If you're on the far end of ether side, you're 'radical', and there's no such thing as 'reactionary'.
AA is an anarchy, albeit one with hierarchy and organization. "...our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern", to quote the second tradition, is not merely rhetoric, but actual practice.
That he may have been King is true,
but all that pomp and circumstance is fleeting.
In the end we all return to dust.
Some just do it in a bigger and prettier box.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
I am pretty sure that the original AC was trying to be sarcastic.
Yes, I was referring to the European definition of these terms, as I thought I made clear.
A lot of people don't know that these terms in Europe are (or were, I'm not sure about contemporary Europe) the reverse of their usage in the US.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Sarchasm: The gap between an attempt at clever banter and what results due to a lack of language skills.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Copyright allows all of us who can buy or obtain rights to property to charge as much money as we wish and to exclude anybody we want from using what we own. Including the original owner.
We don't need to be creative. Screw the creators. Take the rights and make money. Most stuff people buy is crap and the "creators" are crappy people to be used up and tossed away - there will always be more of those people. "Friends" is a perfect example: the actors are pretty (and stupid), the show's premise is summed up in the title - no creativity there. The public (stupid,stupud and more stupid) watch the show and buy whatever stuff is shown in ads. Now there is the creativity! But nobody fights over the copyright of ads - they sell a product and thne the product changes and new ads are needed. No copyright necessary because the product life is as short as the attention span of the average viewer.
Just open your wallet and attend "spiderman" and buy this year's spinoff merchandise. In a decade or less they will be worthless...but anybody stealing our "copyright" with a knockoff goes to jail. Saves us attorney's fees where we can have the taxpayers foot the bill for enforcing the laws that we use to take your money.
It is the oldest law: he who has the gold makes the rules.
So long, fools.
Pardon me, I have to ask.
Since "libertarian" is to eschew force except in defense of property, and "socialism" is to expropriate personal property by force, can you define what you mean by "libertarian socialism"?
With the "government schooling" comment, I attempted to demonstrate that a great number of people are working off of very narrow examples chosen by the state to reenforce its own position, spurred by "whole recorded history" over-generalization. I agree, it was not done well.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
No.
I think selfishness is orthogonal to "goodness". Many selfish acts are antithetical to "goodness", even though there are some selfish acts that have "good" results.
I wrote that the problem was not (only) that capitalism rewards selfishness, it was that it punish "goodness".
Right,
The issues of codified laws and conflict resolution are as hard to solve in an anarchy as in any other society. I try hard (I guess I likewise fail it?) to explain that most of the most obvious "drawbacks of anarchy" that people think of when they hear the word "anarchy" are in effect in our world today, and that the anarchic world would be very little different in that regard.
However, where anarchy is really interesting is in the issue of hierarchy, and in that sense the world is very far from anarchy today.
Mention anarchy and people almost always will reply with some comment on lawlessness, bringing the focus of the discussion away from social hierarchies.
Face it, Bill Gates has, in some senses, more "power" than a landless farmer in Brazil, even though he in some senses contributes less to the wealth of the world. That's hierarchy. Solve these problems, and we have a sweet, fair, anarchy.
It's not all about chaos and lawlessness. Organization may be "the work of the devil" but it's something that many classic anarchists preach and practice, in as decentralized and non-hierarchical forms as possible.
Controversies are settled among the users themselves. Obscene and factually untrue entries are removed by users. Discussions are common.
Thanks for the clarification.
That's what I wrote: "derogatory term".
Exactly.
One very good example of what I'd like to see going on in an anarchistic society is The Debian project.
The anarchist movement works with loose organizations and (in it's syndicalist branch) decentralized unions.
One can easily think of a health-care cooperative, for example, or a food distribution organization.
(I say "no", your housebuilding example would be fine under anarchy.)
Well, that really depends on the type of government, doesn't it? Most governments in practice today are involuntary and hierarchical.
Having a "leader" in the undertaking of a house-building is no worse than having Linus manage the linux kernel. If he screws up, we can "fork the code".
(Another example is the Kropotkin quote elsewhere in this thread about (temporarily and voluntarily) defering to the authority of a master something or other, I think it was a boat-maker.)
I view the house-building "leader" as a coordinator or scheduler, not a tyrant. She or he can never force me to do anything. In contemporary society, I would likely be an employee and thus I would be vulnerably to tyranny from my employer.
Anarchism has it's vulnerabilites, too; I recommend the SF classic The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin for a depiction of pros and cons of the type of anarchism I advocate.
Alexei Borovoi spoke of anarchism as "the equality of all members in a free organization".