Date: Tue, 2 Feb 99 15:23:00 EST
From: "Brian J. Callahan" <Brian=J.=Callahan%MT%DFCI-AT-EYE.DFCI.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: Re: baby food]


Jonathan writes:
>	Also, if we don't assume that most humans are in fact decent people 
>who
>will try and make sure food, shelter, and happiness are equitably
>distributed in their community, then we assume the need for some
>law-creating body that will ensure equality, which is contrary to anarchist
>thought, no?

No, we don't have to assume all humans will behave decently in order to have 
an anarchist society.  If that was required, I wouldn't think anarchism was 
possible.  I do asssume that all humans have the potential or tendency to act 
"decently", difficult to define, but we know what we mean.  However, one 
tendency of humanity that I think is inherent is simply the diversity of 
responses.  There will certainly be some people who, for whatever biological 
or socio-developmental reason, won't act decently.  In fact, they may band 
together is communities.  Now, I think we should in general not interfere in 
these "indecent" places, except to the extent that we say any individual has 
the right to leave ( children being the difficult case, as before).  But that 
is, admittedly, something close to a universal rule.  And no, I don't want a 
govermental agency to enforce it.  I just want my fellow anarchists in 
general to agree.  Why?  Because otherwise I may find myself in a community 
that has become oppressive, and I won't be permitted to leave.  That ain't 
anarchy.  

You cannot asssume that everyone will be decent all the time.  There is a 
dark side to humanity that is ignored at our peril.  Power corrupts.  Liberty 
does demand constant vigilance.  As Kropotkin said (paraphrasing), I'm not an 
anarchist because I trust everybody, I'm an anarchist because I don't trust 
anyone else with power...and that includes the other members of my community, 
if they have the right to compel me to stay.