Re: is Debian an anarchist organization/project?
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:02, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Or maybe, every individual needs to BE an army? One could have a
> kalashnikov in the kitchen, an RPG in the attic, and sniper rifles here and
> there... And if your neighbors noticed you building something anti-social
> like a MiG or a tank, I'm fairly certain they'd take action, if only for
> their own self-preservation. Even the wickedest psychopath needs to sleep
> sometime. As long as power is decentralized, it's not a big burden for
> citizens to KEEP it decentralized.
So if you have a wicked psychopath living nearby who hasn't bothered you. Do
you allow them to continue doing what they like or risk your own life trying
to stop them? Surely it's better to allow an organized police force with
swat teams etc take care of such problems!
> >There are many parts of Africa without effective governments, they have
> > much more disorder, crime, and poverty than the first-world countries
> > with heavy governments that most of us are used to.
>
> I would tend to disagree. A bee-hive looks disorderly to the untrained
> eye, but beautifully ordered to the one that knows it. And, while much
> of the third world may be "poor" by our standards, when it comes right
> down to it, a place to sleep at night and ready access to food seem a
> lot more important than how much shine and gleam your plumbing has. And
> in the third world, people typically have these. The farmers tend to
> work 2-4 hours a day in their fields, and spend the rest of the day
> drinking, talking, joking, socializing with their neighbors... I
> gleaned this knowledge from observing my in-laws and their neighbors. :)
In all the reports on rape, murder, and other serious crimes it seems that
third world countries are disproportionally represented. Russia apparently
has all the records for serial killings, and South Africa has the records for
raping babies.
Ants and bees appear very organized to me, they do their jobs efficiently and
take care of their community.
> >That might work for a non-technological society. It doesn't scale to chip
> >fabs capable of producing 50 million transistor CPUs that run at 3GHz, and
> >other similar technological production.
>
> If society thought such chips were important, it would not only build
> the necessary fabs, they'd be vastly superior than the stuff we have now
> that has to put profits ahead of actual innovation, value, and quality.
I think you don't understand how chips are manufactured.
Here are a couple of links on building CPU fabs. You may argue that the
current CPUs are going the wrong way with a focus on clock speed, but the
alternatives have been tried and haven't been able to compete. Also check
out the F-CPU project and their discussions of CPU cost.
http://www.internetwk.com/reviews/rev122099.htm
http://www.ebnonline.com/story/OEG20000524S0032
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:07, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> Not really. Under anarchism, the means of production would be in the
> hands of the people. So if they didn't have food to eat it would most
> likely be their own fault for not working, in which case let them
> starve. But given how easy it is to grow food, I doubt anyone would
> starve; there would always be some kind souls ready to share their food
> with those who couldn't work to get their own. This isn't theoretical,
> but actual; it's how society got along for aeons.
If everyone had to spend time growing food then they wouldn't be able to
concentrate on tasks such as designing computers or aircraft. Our society is
based on specialisation, that means most people don't primarily grow their
own food. More people should do some hobby farming (plant a fruit tree and
some vegetables in their back yard), but having everyone grow what they eat
doesn't lead to a technological society such as we have.
How many Debian developers grow all their own food?
> If each person has the weaponry to take out 10 other people, people will
> be pretty polite to each other.
Until you get some nutter with 100 followers...
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:30, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> As for the costs of roads: somehow it all works out. It always has in
> the past. Instead of making a big road, when people feel the need,
> they'll group new buildings around where a new road will go, and voila!
> there is the new fine straight wide road.
No! When you have people making their own roads then the roads are never
straight. Look at any old European city for examples of this. In any
European city you can generally trace the straight roads to the kings that
ordered them. Straight roads tend to go past palaces or town halls...
> >I'm happy to attend install-fests and spend a half day configuring other
> >people's PCs without pay. But I'm not going to spend several years of
> >non-stop work without getting something for it!
>
> Absolutely. You are entitled to recompense for your labor. You do some
> work for someone, they should give you money, or do some work for you in
> return. Remember, anarchism is not communism. What's yours is
> definately yours. It's just, what's the publics can be used by you, but
> isn't really yours.
Yes, but in a pure anarchistic system who would pay me and 5000 other people
to setup a fab for modern CPUs? To develop CPUs you need lots of expensive
equipment such as electron microscopes to set it up...
> >If "publically funded" means "government funded" then yes I agree that can
> >work (but that goes against the anarchist philosophy).
>
> Only inasmuch as governments are against anarchist philosophy. The
> concept of people grouping together to work on large projects and
> achieve large goals is the very heart of anarchism.
Governments aren't against anarchist philosophy as long as the anarchists pay
their taxes and obey the laws. ;)
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: