Tim wrote profoundly:
> There are many forms of anarchies.
<snip>
> Well, there ain't going to be "Anarchy," as in some scheme whereby
> all existing institutions are somehow replaced by anarchic
> equivalents. No one of reputation here has suggested this is likely.
Just so. In fact, Tim's earlier mention of the book "Snow Crash" is worth
emphasizing. That book presents a plausible literary vision (albeit a somewhat
tongue-in-cheek one) of what society might look like if anarchies flourish. A
bewildering profusion of competing interests, in which "The Feds" are still
here, but have become (it is to be hoped) a marginalized, freakish, and
pitiable cult-like organization -- just one of many gangs, and not the most
prominent gang by a long shot.
"Snow Crash" is even more interesting when contrasted with L. Neil Smith's "The
Probability Broach" -- which is an anarcho-libertarian utopian fantasy in which
there is broad social consensus supporting what amounts to a single set of
mostly-private institutions for the maintenance of public order. Smith's North
American Confederation makes great mind-candy, but there is so manifestly no
way to get there from here that the book is easy to dismiss.
"The Probability Broach" convinced me at a very tender age that anarchy was a
consumation devoutly to be wished, but almost certainly unobtainable. "Snow
Crash" convinced me that anarchy is very possible, possibly even inevitable,
but will be no utopia. Watching the developments unfolding in Russia and
Somalia suggest to me that "Snow Crash" style anarchy may be nearer in some
parts of the world than I ever imagined when first I read "Snow Crash." (To
see what I mean, I recommend the following two articles from Atlantic
Monthly -- pay no attention to the statist claptrap spin, but just focus on the
interesting facts contained in the articles. See
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/05/maass.htm
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/05/tayler-p1.htm ).
-- Daniel
