Bill Bartlett wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> >It seems to me that a successful anarchist system must have a bigger
> >than normal provision for "benefit of doubt".  Otherwise you have a
> >system where, because they cannot count on enforcement of rules,
> >people tend to suspect nefarious intent behind every destructive act,
> >even when there is good reason to believe the destructive act was
> >unintended.
>
> Quite the reverse. For a start, instead of relying on enforcement of
> rules, you just get rid of the rules and get rid of the need for
> such rules. Where standards have to be met though, then the idea of
> trusting people or organisations to meet them is inadequate. The
> relevant concept is accountability, they must prove that they are
> meeting them.

But accountable means responsible to someone.  How is the
accountability to be met and then judged without a system of
measurement?  The system of measurement is a set of rules, yes?  What
does accountability mean if not judgment according to a set of rules?
"must prove" implies enforcement of those rules by those to whom I am
accountable.

> This is not a new concept, it is really an invention of capitalist
> economics. There can be no question of nefarious behaviour if one can and
> does prove otherwise.

I agree, but I don't see how that solves the entire problem.  Say I
prove I can drive a car safely.  Then what?  Am I then allowed to
drive on the roads?  Who allows me to drive?  Suppose everyone in the
town gathers to vote on whether I should be allowed to drive.  They
vote yes.  Overjoyed, I celebrate by driving through the town at
100mph.  Now what?  Does everyone have to come back and hold another
vote about my driving ability?  Ok, so I come in and prove again that
I can drive safely.  They vote yes.  I celebrate by driving through
the town at 100mph.  Eventually, the people decide they have had
enough and vote no.  I celebrate by driving through the town at
100mph.  Since there is no enforcement of rules, who will stop me?

> >It's the people [who are evil].  If the institution brings out the
> >evilness of its members, the evilness must be there to be brought
> >out.
>
> Evil is about intent, rather than outcome. It is not a useful
> concept here, where we are concerned with outcomes, it merely
> distracts from the real issue. Forget "evil", think in terms of
> desirable and undesirable outcomes.

But there are people who have evil intent.  And we are not just
concerned with outcomes.  We are concerned with preventing certain
outcomes as well.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701