RE: [lpsf-discuss] OT: Self-defense seminar

It's an interesting question, but it's not obvious to me that rules improve human relationships in general. If someone isn't being nice to me, I can say so, and do something about it if I want, without adding, "Hey, you broke a rule." In most contentious situations, there's going to be conflict about the rule, and its application, as well as the substance at issue. I think rules can be useful as a streamlining device in situations involving large numbers of people in relatively low-conflict situations. Traffic rules are a good example. Nobody especially cares which side of the road we drive on, and it doesn't make sense to work it out fresh every time we encounter another car.

Piaget once observed a group of 9-year-old boys spending half an hour electing a president and deciding on a bunch of rules, all for the purpose of throwing snowballs at each other. I think they were practicing to be libertarians.

Anarchists are necessarily opposed only to legal rules, and can live quite happily, in principle, with agreements in other realms. There's no contradiction in being an anarchist who wants an explicitly formulated rule about what can be posted to a list, but there is at least an interesting incongruity. An incongruity perhaps in form somewhat like the Objectivists being explicitly atheistic at the same time they were recreating many of the essential elements of religion in the movement, as Ellis charged.

By legal rule, do you mean a single rule system with a single "use of force" system?

Is it correct to say that an anarchist society isn't so much as a society that refuses to use force, but rather just doesn't believe in having a monopoly on the use of force? This may be a dumb question, but I keep hearing it referred to as the former.

-- Steve