Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Some Selected Postings from
Newsgroup alt.fan.heinlein
Which Bear Directly or Indirectly
on the Subject


Chris Coughton 12-12-2000 David Silver 12-12-2000 David Silver 12-21-2000
David Silver 12-21-2000(2) Jane Davitt 12-21-2000 LvPokerPlayer 12-12-2000
LvPokerPlayer 12-13-2000 LvPokerPlayer 12-21-2000(1) LvPokerPlayer 12-21-2000(2)
LvPokerPlayer 12-22-2000 Mac 12-15-2000 Phebe 12-21-2000
Phebe 12-22-2000 L.N.Collier 12-03-2000 Stan Mann 12-12-2000
Will Reich 12-12-2000

-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:21:57 -0900, George Partlow
wrote:

>Not _quite_ true; the Official Secrets Act and the laws of libel create
>a slightly different climate.

I was under the impression that the USA (and most countries) also have
laws of libel and slander (defamation), so I don't think that they are
relevant to "free speech". Yes, everyone has the freedom to say what
they like, but someone else is free to take action against them for
doing so (the action may range from verbal disagreement through legal
action to physical violence, depending on the severity of the
disagreement and the acceptability of the reaction). This is true in
any society, spreading untruths about a person is offensive (pun
intended).

I will agree that the Official Secrets Act is (ab)used far too much, it
is too easy to slap a "secret" classification on anything which the
politicians don't want discussed. However, this is usually applied to
'public' speech (except in the case of military secrets which any
country will restrict), and I haven't heard of any of the speakers at
Hyde Park Corner being arrested under the OSA (or even for slander).

Isn't there an equivalent to the OSA in America? For instance, the
documents released about 'Carnivore' under the Freedom of Information
Act are apparently very heavily censored, and that when they are being
used by the government. I'm sure your military information is similarly
protected. You probably don't over-use it nearly as much as is done
over here, though, where I've seen it used by companies to protect trade
secrets (I've never been able to find out what legality that has, or
whether it's just used as a threat).

>OTOH the UK tabloid press seems to me to be every bit as obnoxious as
>the US crowd, so it's not entirely clear how serious the effect of the
>latter is.

"The latter" being libel, if I read correctly, they have been made to
retract their comments and pay compensation occasionally. It doesn't
seem to deter them much though. Occasionally they will also be shut up
with the OSA as well, although when it happens there is usually a lot of
outcry (from the tabloids) about it making it very clear that they have
been gagged, but a lot of the time the gagging orders are just too late
and the information has already got out, all the government can do is
try to discredit their sources (on one hand, most people don't believe
much of what the tabloids say anyway, on the other, the harder
government protests the more likely we are to think that there is
something in it).

>Chris, Jane, Jani, any other UKers please feel free to comment!

Thanks for the permission . (Not sarcastic, I was getting the
distinct impression that some people want this newsgroup - or possibly
the whole Internet - to be for Americans only...)

Chris C

-----------------------------------------------------------------
LV Poker Player:

>Private security would be at least as effective as government police at
>stopping this, probably more so.

Can you afford to hire efficient private security 24/7 for the rest of your
life? Johann Sebastian Bach Smith could. But he was the richest man in the
world. He even assigned some of his private security to protect Eunice Branca,
his secretary, during her off-duty hours. What happened to her? You have the
anarchy you wish, de facto if not de jure, in _I Will Fear No Evil_. Wanna live
there? Indulge yourself if you wish, but don't expect me or others
affirmatively to RSVP you invitations to visit. I'll take a modicum of
government that attempts to protect public health and safety, that attempts to
provide a forum to enforce my contracts with others, etc., even ineffectually,
if you don't mind, so long as I think their attempt to do so is in good faith.
--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jean S and/or Jeff C asks, concerning the question whether Prof actually
"accomplished things" with his bombs:

>Helped free Luna, nyet?

Nyet! I don't recall any thrown bombs by Prof or anyone else in Luna. Wyoh
suggested such a thing, once. Manny pointed out that if she threw a bomb where
she wished (in the computer complex where Mike was housed) " ... bye-n-bye
things get a little stuffy and cold." or words to that effect.

Metaphorically, during MIAHM, 'bombs' were 'thrown' when Mike dropped rocks
down on earth, but those weren't Prof-thrown bombs and, indeed, were Mike's
idea. Moreover, the program was put in effect by Mannie, acting alone, as Prof
was "out-of-touch" when the decision was made--I sometimes wonder whether
deliberately, noting Prof's propensity for survival. All Prof's "bomb-throwing"
got him, so far as we know, was arrest and lifetime exile to the Moon. I'd
suggest that if Prof ever threw a bomb himself, the police officials of his
home country couldn't prove it, and if he engineered throwing by others,
presumably those others got the rope, while all he got was lifetime exile.

I actually believe old guileful "Bold Bear" of "Peace" was a pretty slimy
creature. He seems to have led his revolutions from a far piece back, always in
the rear with the gear.

--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LVPP:

>Take a look at bomb throwing. Is
>this ALWAYS wrong? For example, on July 20, 1944 a bomb was planted in
>an
>attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Ok, planted, not thrown, but that
>is
>pretty close. Was this justified? I think it was. My only regret was
>that
>Hitler survived.

Your regret and concession that the bomb plot was probably justified surely
give confort to the ghosts of von Staffenberg and others, up to and including
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel. Von Staffenberg died very painfully. They were
nice to Rommel and let him simply put a bullet in his own head. Now let's take
another look at situational ethics of bomb throwers or just plain bombers if
you please.

1. Was Guy Fawkes justified in trying to blow up Parliament in November 1605?
If not, why not?

2. How about Mrs. Pankhurst when she incited persons to place explosives in Mr.
Lloyd George's house in 1913? If not, why not?

3. What about the Serbian patriot who took out Francis Ferdinand and his wife
the next year? If not, why not, and no post hoc proper hoc arguments here,
please?

4. How about the Czech patriots who bombed Heydrich in 1942? If not, why not,
and please consider the consequences to the city of Lidice?

5. How about the man who authorized certain acts of bombing on August 6 and 8,
1945? And please bear in mind that my oldest living male relative was getting
ready to "go ashore" once more as they quaintly put it on the island of Kyushu
come September 1 of that year. He'd already survived 'going ashore' on
Guadalcanal on August 8, 1942, two other places that I won't trouble you to
look up in subsequent years, and finally Okinawa earlier on in 1945. A fellow
named Manchester in the same 27th Marine Regiment on Okinawa wrote a little
book you mind find fun to read called "Goodbye Darkness." You might also look
at Manchester's dedication to "American Caesar" for a count of casualties the
27th took on Okie. Finally, run a little websearch for the term "Operation
Coronet" if you'd like to understand fully what my relative's mother perhaps
understood too well.

I'd be interested in whether you can show any ethical consistency I recognize
as valid (or logically, to use your favorite term) in your
approvals/disapprovals because as you've, yourself, pointed out:

>But it is awfully easy to use this to justify anything whatsoever.

Who, of the five persons or groups noted above do you think least
justifiable/most justifiable, if any?

--
David M. Silver
AGplusone@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think Heinlein's Moon was playing to what he mistakenly thought was
> peace movement sentiment, but he was dead wrong. Elitism is not the
> way to free Luna or anywhere else. Mike needed some serious static
> charge and the Prof and Manny and Wyoh put securely in jail.
>
> Phebe

I agree that they were wrong to start a revolution and fool the people;
apolitical, apathetic people at that who didn't _want_ a revolution, just
liked to whinge. HOWEVER....if they hadn't, everyone would've died 7 years
down the line from starvation.
It sticks in our craw because we suspect uneasily that it wouldn't be us in
charge....
and wonder if our strings are being pulled by similar people.

In some ways it's the same as Bathroom; there they used "dirty" tactics to
fool the voters because they "knew" that their candidate was the best for
the people. It's that slippery slope again I'm afraid.

Jane
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Will willreich_77@my-deja.com

>Of course, we choose which laws we will obey. If you didn't break some
>law last month, you are way below the national average.

Precisely. I think we are all rational anarchists, to an extent. Can anyone
out there state that they have NEVER deliberately broken a law? You have NEVER
deliberately driven over the speed limit? When you give someone a ride or
perform some other minor service, and that person hands you some money, do you
ALWAYS report these transactions on your income tax? When you get back to your
parked car and discover that (a) the meter has expired and (b) there is no
ticket but (c) you see a parking enforcement officer headed your way, what do
you do? Do you wait for that officer to get there so you can get the ticket
you deserve? Or do you hop in and drive out of there?

>BTW, the reason I don't bomb a Federal Building is because it would be
>wrong, an awful thing to do. In addition, I might get caught. The
>second reason has a peripheral connection with its being illegal but
>the first and main reason has nothing to do with its being illegal.
>

I think most people see things this way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From: agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone)

>>Private security would be at least as effective as government police at
>>stopping this, probably more so.
>
>Can you afford to hire efficient private security 24/7 for the rest of your
>life?

Of course. We afford it now, through taxes. What would stop us from affording
it in the much cheaper free market. Even leaving out the bureaucratic
inefficiencies in anything government, remember that we do a LOT more in law
enforcement than is needed. Cut out the war on drugs alone and the price of
law enforcement drops dramatically. So, since we pay for it now, yes we could
continue to do so when the cost is much lower.

> Johann Sebastian Bach Smith could. But he was the richest man in the
>world.

Totally irrelevant. Most people do not need anything like what he did. We
don't now, and never will.

>He even assigned some of his private security to protect Eunice Branca,
>his secretary, during her off-duty hours. What happened to her? You have the
>anarchy you wish, de facto if not de jure, in _I Will Fear No Evil_.

You seem to be confusing anarchy with lawlessness and violence. Common, but
wrong.

ANY society - democratic, communist, fascist, anarchy, religious dicatorship,
monarchy, feudal, dictatorship, whatever, has to have the vast majority of its
citizens respect the rights of others. Tian has pointed out that the vast
majority of us do not bomb federal buildings out of fear of beign caught - we
refrain from doing so just because we recognize that killing others and
destroying property is wrong and we don't do so. Fear of getting caught is a
very minor secondary concern if we even consider it at all.

Any society - ANY SOCIETY - that loses this is gone. It can't survive. This
includes a society with no government. Most likely there will be a period of
chaos followed by a dictatorship. Something like this happened when the Nazis
took over Weimar Germany.

If we went into a period of no government - aka anarchy - with the vast
majority of citizens respecting the lives and property of others, it would
work. Mechanisms would be developed to deal with the few who needed dealing
with.

If we did not have this and a significant portion of the population killed,
stole and destroyed just because they thought they could get away with it,
anarchy would not work. Neither would any other system.

>I'll take a modicum of
>government that attempts to protect public health and safety, that attempts
>to
>provide a forum to enforce my contracts with others, etc., even
>ineffectually,
>if you don't mind, so long as I think their attempt to do so is in good
>faith.

Very few governments act in good faith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Phebe pheb@bellatlantic.net

>I think Heinlein's Moon was playing to what he mistakenly thought was
>peace movement sentiment, but he was dead wrong. Elitism is not the
>way to free Luna or anywhere else. Mike needed some serious static
>charge and the Prof and Manny and Wyoh put securely in jail.
>

I'm snipping most of your post. It was definitely thought provoking, but I'm
not sure I want to make any comment beyond that at this point.

Mannie and the rest faced a moral dilemma similar to the one I proposed in
another thread - what to do if the one and only way for a society to survive is
to commit genocide against another society? In this case, remember Mike's
projection. Food riots in few years, but he did not expect cannibalism to
start until two years after the initial food riots.

Can we accept that avoiding this result is a Good Thing?

Did Mannie and the rest have any viable choice other than to do the things they
did?

It is also worth remembering that the whole mess came about as a result of
government, in this case Lunar Authority.

Decided to go to my copy. Prof's exact words after Mannie calls him a
hypocrite are: "No. But if it makes you feel better to think that I am one,
you are welcome to use me as your scapegoat. But I am not a hypocrite to
myself because I was aware the day we declared the Revolution that we would
need much money and would have to steal it. It did not trouble me because I
considered it better than food riots six years hence, cannibalism in eight. I
made my choice and have no regrets."

One term for this is situational ethics. Take a look at bomb throwing. Is
this ALWAYS wrong? For example, on July 20, 1944 a bomb was planted in an
attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Ok, planted, not thrown, but that is
pretty close. Was this justified? I think it was. My only regret was that
Hitler survived.

But it is awfully easy to use this to justify anything whatsoever.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>From: Phebe pheb@bellatlantic.net

>>This is why I'm an anarchist. There is exactly ONE (1) person in this
>entire
>>world who knows what is best for me, and that is ME. I am willing to extend
>>this to other people too. If they don't try to run my life for me, I will
>>refrain from trying to run theirs for them.
>>
>I didn't realize you are an anarchist. Do you agree then that the
>manipulations and government that the Luna revolutionaries make that
>not anarchy but elitism?
>

Yes, I do more or less agree with that.

I also think that in the circumstances postulated - food riots in seven years,
cannibalism in nine - it was justified elitism. Mass starvation is a Bad
Thing, preventing it is a Good Thing. Sometimes you do what you have to do.

It would be much more of a moral dilemma if the Loonies had not been facing
such a catastrophe. Say they had just been under the rule of Lunar Authority
but no such catastrophe was looming. Would a revolution such as the one Mannie
and Prof came up with be justified then? A much more difficult question to
answer. In The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, we find out that the Loonie
government really is not much better than Authority was, if any.

To me, the solution is to chuck all coercive government. People can get by
making their own decisions. Those who can't, think of it as evolution in
action. Or that stupidity is the only universal capital crime.

I know what you and others are probably thinking. I am advocating some kind
of dog eat dog society where anyone can grab a gun and open fire, or do
anything else they want to do to anyone. No, what I advocate would not work
that way.

In any society, there is going to be a high demand for safety and security. We
provide those now with government police, and they fail all too often,
sometimes failing to solve the problems, sometimes actively contributing to the
problems. When there is a high demand for something, private business steps in
to supply the demand. There would be plenty of police services available in an
anarchy. You would just contract with them yourself, rather than being coerced
into dealing with the government police.

I have also stated before that ANY society depends on the majority of members
respecting each other's property and lives. If an anarchy consisted of large
numbers of people who would just open fire or steal things and such actions
whenever they thought they could get away with it, anarchy would collapse. So
would any other society.

However, we have discussed before that most people do not refrain from
committing crimes out of fear of getting caught. Most people refrain simply
because they are not the sort of people to commit crimes. Fear of getting
caught is a minor secondary concern for most of us, if it is a factor at all.
But anarchy would develop means to deal with the exceptions, the same way any
society does.

People think of protection rackets when they consider the above. What do you
call government except the king of the protection rackets?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>However, we have discussed before that most people do not refrain from
>>committing crimes out of fear of getting caught. Most people refrain simply
>>because they are not the sort of people to commit crimes.
>
>Mainly women. Women don't commit many crimes, and few crimes of
>violence.

I disagree with that "mainly women" statement. The vast majority of males ALSO
refrain from committing crimes for reasons other than fear of getting caught.

Now I will admit that the percentage of males who commit crimes is higher than
the percentage of females who do so. In both cases it is a small minority,
just a smaller minority among women. That may be what you meant?

> However, MOST crimes of all sorts and certainly most crimes
>of violence, are committed against women.

This may be true, I have never seen statistics. All the more reason to not
favor the current failure of the government system, as far as I am concerned.

>Most women are not attracted to anarchy as a system, I also notice.
>The logical extension is that we would be either owned, or victimized.

Don't see the logic here. Say that you have contracted with a private firm to
prevent this, and firm refuses to honor the contract. What will prevent you
and others from contracting with a more effective firm?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boojumhunter wrote in message
<3A2E290A.BB33A288@spamouthome.com>...
Mac wrote:

> Whether or not the Declaration, the Constitution, or the
> Bill of Rights apply only to those citizens of the United
> States --- how many other countries have incorporated any
> of those elements into their own written documents and
> strive to present such freely to all who come within their
> own borders? If whatever country you hail from declares
> that you have "Free Speech", are able to worship as you
> wish, and are guaranteed the right to Assemble Freely,
then
> that is great !! You written document of your country
> surely then permits you to freely criticize your
> eaders --- your manner of government.
********************************
BOOJUMHUNTER:
My view of *your* most incredible and powerful documents
would appear to
be more inclusive than yours. 'All men' means exactly
that... 'all
men'... and 'inalienable' speaks to the belief that no one
can take away
those rights.

The beauty that is America is that the founding fathers
spoke of rights
that we all have regardless of country of origin, of wealth,
of religion
etc. etc. It also places no constraints on the freedoms
granted. Free
speech means exactly that... no boundaries and yes, with
that freedom
come responsibilities.

I'm truly sorry that an American is seeking to place limits
on the very
thing that makes America great. That's exactly what I meant
when I wrote
that sometimes American actions betray the heritage of your
past and the
promise of your future.

The bottom line? Your documents address the rights of
everyone, all of
us, everywhere. No attempt by yourself or anyone else can
remove my
freedom of speech without the use of force... and even then
all you can
really do is put me down not shut me up.
Enjoy your life.
****************************************************
Not at all.
Glad you think so highly of these concepts.
Please advise us when you shall incorporate these elements
into your own form of government in your own country.
And, my question goes back to an element which appears to
arise in Heinlein on a fairly regular basis ---- one
"earns" these rights by more than simply living through days
and months and years. And, if one is going to speak out
boldly my personal opinion is that I would like to know
something of that person: i.e., how have they contributed
to the society from which they come and that which they
choose to criticize.
Enjoy your life.
---Mac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:18:13 GMT, nospam@nospam.invalid (Jean S and/or
Jeff C) wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:38:17 GMT, Phebe wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:00:21 GMT, nospam@nospam.invalid (Jean S and/or
>>Jeff C) wrote:
>
>>>No. Prof actually accomplished things with his bombs.
>>
>>
>>
>>And what do you accomplish with a bomb? That is, other than what
>>McVeigh accomplished?
>>
>
>Helped free Luna, nyet?
 

Okay, let me confess that I find The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress not at
all anarchic: they set up an elaborate goverment! What it was was
elitism iof the worst kind. That's why I don't like it. This cabal,
this Group of Four, these Montagnards, fooled all their fellow
citizens repeatedly "for their own good" with no concept, no lip
service, no wave even in the general direction of democracy. This is
very McVeigh. Many, many died on two planets because these few people
thought, hey! it might be a good idea.

I think Heinlein was trying, in 1965 when this book was written (pub.
1966) to relate to the anger he felt around him from the young war
protesters. The protests were really getting into full swing at that
time. He suceeded in capturing (or maybe molding!!) the free love,
make love/not war ideas in Stranger in 1961, but wow did he ever miss
the boat with Moon. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.

He put in a lot of anti-North America stuff, making ex-Americans the
worst of the earth villains. I suppose this was supposed to please the
angry young people, but we weren't angry at being Americans!
American values were exactly what we wanted preserved and they were
being destroyed! After just being taught about the brave guerrilla
home-defender Minutemen pinging away from behind trees at the foreign
invasion of cruel and rigid Redcoats ------ they told us we had to go
to a far land and BE Redcoats!!

Hell no/
We won't go.

Also, Heinlein thought we LIKED the cabal of revolutionaries. He was
quite right that there was one, and that they were the leaders of the
peace movement, and I met or saw nearly all of them, but as soon as
their true Revolutionary colors came out (Chicago Seven, Days of Rage,
etc.) we were outta there. Deserted them. That wasn't democracy and we
knew it.

I think Heinlein's Moon was playing to what he mistakenly thought was
peace movement sentiment, but he was dead wrong. Elitism is not the
way to free Luna or anywhere else. Mike needed some serious static
charge and the Prof and Manny and Wyoh put securely in jail.

Phebe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 22 Dec 2000 00:56:03 GMT, lvpokerplayer@aol.com (LV Poker Player)
wrote:

>
>>[Phebe] Most women are not attracted to anarchy as a system, I also notice.
>>The logical extension is that we would be either owned, or victimized.
>
>Don't see the logic here. Say that you have contracted with a private firm to
>prevent this, and firm refuses to honor the contract. What will prevent you
>and others from contracting with a more effective firm?
 

Oh, well, it's all hypothetical anyway ------ government seems to be
another instinct. Very few bodies of people lack government. Those
that do, such as Somalia and Albania, are pretty primitive and violent
and eventually clans and warlords take over, a primitive level of
government. The dystopias of the cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk writers
are intriguing, with absolutely everything privatized, but a common
feature across 100% of these novels is that it's a very dangerous
world with a lot of seedy characters hanging out hoping to prey on the
"Burbclaves," the armed and moated suburban enclaves. The women are
universally invisible or kung-fu types in these scifi scenarios.
That's about how I would imagine it, too.

You are saying that the solution is for women to work and earn enough
to live in a guarded Burbclave (like an apartment building with
guards). But what about travel? In a society with no defenses against
hijacking and armed robbery the traveler would not have a nice, safe
airport. Things would have to be very centralized, indeed villages
walled and moated as in The Postman.

No roads, no armies to defend against foreign takeovers, no central
communication systems, no welfare of any kind or available health care
for the poor ------- I am not normally much of a bleeding heart
liberal, God knows, but I'm suddenly thinking of schools, public
health, centralized Big Science and lots of things we rely on
government for. Good government, at least. I realize that bad
government is worse than none, of course. But it sounds like a very
primitive way to live, like many current fourth world countries in
Africa and Asia.

Phebe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RAH-AIM mtng notice: 12/7 & 9/00, Moon, DoubleStar, etc.
Date: 12/03/2000
Author: reillocnl

In article <20001201074945.17413.00003740@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
agplusone@aol.com (AGplusone) wrote:

It's good you didn't put a lot on the table to consider or pose any tough questions, Dave.

>[Intro. stuff.]

> So my first question is: What makes Professor Bernardo de la Paz any different
> from the fellow who put the bullet in McKinley or the fellow responsible for
> mailing out the election eve misleading pamphlets attributing anti-Semitism to candidate Bradley?

If I remember correctly from one of my sociology classes, way back when, there's only one thing that's taboo
in all cultures and this is it. The answer to the question is, obviously, that there's no
difference, then, between the Prof. and Czolgosz. Sam, the guy who beat Bradley is completely different,
though. The former committed treason, the latter merely some lesser moral wrong. Sure, you let enough of
these lesser wrongs go untended and you've got a big moral mess but it's still within the system rather than
trying kill it outright.

>
> And my second question is: Is the author telling us that political tactics are
> the same as revolutionary tactics--i.e., all's fair in love, war and politics?

No. All's not fair in politics and he'd never say that. He'd say that it's happened but not that it's fair. In war,
you're out to kill and you shouldn't be there if you had another reason for coming. In
love...well, screw that. I dont' even want to talk about it. It's trite and cutesy anyway. Politics isn't war. If it's
hardball it's full contact but it's not politics if it crosses the line between
permanently putting the opposition out of the game and killing it.

>
> And my third question is: What makes a 'rational anarchist's' solution any
> different from the group in the novel _Friday_ that threaten to assassinate
> those who are causing the problem (you know who you are), i.e., those who would
> develop success by eliminating the blameworthy until somehow non-blameworthy take office?

If:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence
save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to
shift blame, share blame, distribute blame ... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place within
human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his
evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world ... aware that his efforts will be less than perfect
yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.
* * * * *
"My point is that one person _is_ responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist--and they do--some _man_ controls
them. In terms of morals, _there_ _is_ _no_ _such_ _thing_ _as_ '_state_.' Just men. Individuals. Each
responsible for his own acts."

Then, he's not an anarchist at all. He's not even a revolutionary. He's a self-appointed societal superego, a
sublime moralist, a judge without a bench other than the one he erects for himself and looks down his nose
at the rest of the world. He's old Bob: lotsa words that look pretty but don't always hold water.

That there's the definition of some kind of guy who's above society because he knows better. He also knows
better, apparently, than to rock the boat, how to work the system to his advantage and only if he gets pushed
into a corner and pushed hard will he suddenly whip out his keen intellect and fighting spirit. Then, it's not
good enough to just be in the revolution, he has to lead it. I'll tell you this, though, if you don't think he's got his
escape route planned from the beginning there's acreage on the moon I'll let you have, cheap.

The question's academic, then. It's comparing apples and kiwi fruit. The group in Friday were revolutionaries.
(I still don't think "anarchist" is the right term; that means bringing down all government.) Maybe, and it's been a couple of
years since I read the book, but maybe if what they were after is complete societal collapse with an eye to
raising something completely new from the rubble, that would decide itself and not be government, per se,
maybe they'd be anarchists. I don't think that's what you said, though.

It's late. More later.
> --
> David M. Silver
> AGplusone@aol.com
> "I expect your names to shine!"

LNC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"O. Deus" wrote:
>
> Which is a good reason to shoot those kind of anarchists on sight.

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to
protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not
be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense. The offense against the
state, if any, should be "Using deadly weapons inside city limits," or
"Creating a traffic hazard," or "Endangering bystanders," or some other
misdemeanor.
However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic
asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct. An
authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth, and it is
doubtful that any have survived the trouble there...regrettable, as they
had the biggest mouths and the smallest brains of any of the
primates.The small-mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the
Galaxy at the very wave front of the Diaspora; there is no need to
protect them. But they can often shoot back.
Lazarus Long(TEFL)

StanMann
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3A34ED4A.AE4A031@mailbox.bellatlantic.net>,
pheb@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> AGplusone was saying that what Timothy McVeigh did was
> unfortunately a good example of Prof. de la Paz's
> "rational anarchy" in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. I
> think that is true! The implications are there ----de
> la Paz was a bomb-thrower in his youth; that is why he
> was deported.

I don't disagree with this part.
>
> Tian thinks the fact that people drove to the Federal
> Building in automobiles was reason enough to bomb them;
> McVeigh thought that their working for the government
> that had the disaster in Waco with the religious
> fanatics was reason enough to bomb them. The fact that
> none of these people had anything to do personally with
> setting up either situation doesn't seem relevant to
> anarchists. I suppose anarchy can actually be
> synonymous with terrorist ---- well, of course, that
> was always its reputation.

Or this part, except: Most of the anarchist movement does not deserve
this reputation. Because McVeigh bombed a building, we can't say that a
whole philisophical concept is evil. I am not an anarchist but I don't
believe in tarring them all with THIS brush.
>
> When Heinlein wrote Moon, there weren't any bombings or
> much terrorism. He didn't see the potential, the
> logical conclusion of anarchy. Maybe. Heinlein always
> liked to play catch with grenades, though ---- taboo
> topics. He has set his story with the right on the side
> of conspirators...but what if right wasn't on their
> side? What IS "right" anyway?
>
> A few years ago I could go into the feed store and buy
> any amount of ammonium nitrate for fertilizer. Sure
> surprised me when they stopped selling it because of
> the potential for bombmaking! People can decide for
> themselves what laws they ought to obey and which not,
> and do as they like and take the consequences, de la
> Paz said. Wow. I wonder how we would feel if McVeigh
> had indeed gotten clean away, as he almost did? We
> would worry constantly that it would happen again, and
> he might have done it again!

So the reason you don't bomb a Federal Building is because there is a
LAW against it. That is not the reason I don't bomb a Federal Building.
Of course, we choose which laws we will obey. If you didn't break some
law last month, you are way below the national average. Many of the
things that are illegal are also morally wrong but that is mostly by
chance. There are other things that are illegal that are not immoral
but simple prudence (who is very wise, despite her name) tells us that
it is not worth the risk. However, the next time I light up a joint, I
will think of you. Damn, you prolly think I am going to bomb a building
next.
BTW, the reason I don't bomb a Federal Building is because it would be
wrong, an awful thing to do. In addition, I might get caught. The
second reason has a peripheral connection with its being illegal but
the first and main reason has nothing to do with its being illegal.

--
Will

This hand will raise now.
There is no "I" that does this,
The cards themselves act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------