| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
On AnarchyOn AnarchyPosted Jul 4, 2005 23:42 UTC (Mon) by njhurst (guest, #6022)In reply to: On Anarchy by Seegras Parent article: ESR: 'We Don't Need the GPL Anymore' (O'ReillyNet)
"instead there are hundreds of thousands of suppliers out there trying to fuck up their competition with whatever means they have access to,"
Why doesn't this apply moreso in an anarchy? Rather than trying to get government monopoly, instead just kill the competitors?
I think the problem with anarchy is that it is inherently unstable due to people's tendency to want to be led. Until you solve this there is no point in trying to move towards anarchy. (and if you solve it it will no longer be an anarchy ;) Furthermore, it is far too easy to kill any opposition without some kind of state monopoly on violence.
(Log in to post comments)
On Anarchy Posted Jul 5, 2005 4:51 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] The GPL provides an equal foundation to build upon. The equality of the GPL doesn't depend on the political state of society. I imagine the GPL is very disturbing to most selfish leaders, for how will they take the work of others and make it their own? The GPL also depends on the forward thinking people that use it for their work, I am very grateful to those people, they have given me hope.
Do people really want to be led, or is it more that they fear being alone? Those are learned behaviors anyway, if a person was always alone and that is all they knew, they wouldn't fear it and I doubt they would want someone else to lead them. And because they are learned behaviors, they can be
I think humans can generally do better than our traditions, governments and social structures would suggest or have allowed. Violence committed by a government is just changing the wrapper, the result is the same.
|
|
||||||||||||