Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 19:06:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Absolute Anarchy=Government


At 03:20 PM 1/14/2002 -0800, Kristopher K. Barrett wrote:
>That was the whole point to these original justice mechanisms... to allow 
>people to
>seek justice and yet discourage clan feuds.
>
>Justice is a commodity desired often more than life itself. If it is 
>denied to people, they
>will make it themselves.

I'm in 100% agreement with that last statement, but I'm not entirely 
certain that retribution(in the case of killings)=justice.  If person A 
kills person B, it seems (imho) to be a matter between person A and person 
B.  If a subset of the group (person B's self-identifying family) decides 
to intervene and make it their matter, that doesn't seem all that far off 
from the current practice of government intervention in personal matters.

>Agreed, except for a terminology quibble:
>
>Free people have agreed upon rights and responsibilities. Statist and 
>other feudalists
>have the false coin of duty and privilege.
>
>Not passively allowing nasty people to do nasty things to others is the 
>responsibility of
>all folks who want the right to be left in peace.
>
> > These days, duty is something to be sneered at, or something to be
> > undertaken at the behest of your employer. Because there are now other
> > things holding societies together. Like anger and fear of punishment,
> > maybe?
> >
>
>I think the State's current mystification of substituting duty and 
>privilege for rights and
>responsibility is causing folks to shun both. The State has been pimping 
>its bogus
>version for so long that people are sick of it, and rightfully so.

  Interesting.  I believe that i understand your differentiation between 
"rights" and "privileges"--the former being the natural birthright of human 
beings while the latter is inherently linked to hierarchy.  But could you 
clarify what you mean by "duty" v. "responsibility"?  It seems to me that 
the difference between duty and/or responsibility in an anarchist society 
and a hierarchical one is or ought to be the difference between loyalty to 
a group and loyalty to some higher abstract (and personal) prionciple of 
good.  But perhaps I'm alone in that belief.