From: maedhros@yabbs
To: abort@yabbs
Subject: re: free living
Date: Sun Jan 30 13:20:07 1994

  One of the prime requisites for establishing any kind of political 
theory into a working system is being able to reconcile your beliefs with 
reality.  Specifically, there is no such thing as a pure political system.
There is no such thing as a pure capitalist country, neither is their a 
pure socialist, and there won't be a pure anarchistic.  Life itself, by 
nature, is a compromise.  As there are certain rules governing nature, 
there are also certain rules governing mass action.  This is not 
necessarily an axiom, but it is generally held as a truth.  It's proof 
would take an additional paper, but I'll suply it if necessary.  For the 
oment, I'll continue as if you've granted me this argument.
  Under the premise that no government is a pure 'color', it then becomes 
necessary for the individual to select the 'shade' in which they feel 
content.  Balanced with this neccesity, is the need for survival.  For if 
the shade is to far from that of the community, the community will respond 
in order to preserve itself.  It is possible to apply these abstract 
theories into a working personal system:

When one comes to a decision, some questions must be asked:

1.  Is it illegal.  This is normally the only question a law
abiding citizen need ask.  The anarchist must delve further however, 
because this is not necessarily an unnavigable obstacle.

2.  What are the odds of being caught.  The second question is the 
likelihood of apprehension if the action is carried out.  This is a 
personal decision in which one must way the gains against the risks.

3.  Does this hurt anyone?  By definition, in anarchistic society everyone 
has a right to personal freedom.  Therefor, it must be established that 
the law being broken is simply a law to unnecessarily impede personal 
freedom.  If, rather, it is a law designed to protect the freedom of 
others, than the law would be acceptable and necessary by anarchistic 
theory.  But, isn't anarchy a lack of all laws  Yes, but if all people 
adhered to the principals of the theory, than they'll never jeopardize the 
freedom of another and since the law will never be used, it doesn't matter 
if it exist.  Call me pessimistic, but I'd prefer the law was there just 
the same.

  While number three seems easy to digest, the other two are the root of 
the compromise.  No, it's not ideal, people shouldn't have to face 
consequences for actions which don't hurt another.  However, compromise is 
necessary.  The alternatives are revolution.  While it might be right to 
let everyone get high if they please, is it worth getting them killed 
over? (Sorry, I'm sure there are better examples of personal freedom, that 
was just of the top of the head)
  I believe we must reconcile our wants and beliefs with the consequences 
of our actions in order to find our most suitable environment.

Maedhros  /\
         /--\
        /    \