John Korber writes:
> In a message dated 6/10/99 8:52:39 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> >Doesn't this mean that a a coercive government structure is justified,
> >and required, for the purpose of enforcing the burden of proof
> >requirement and the dismantling of structures that can't meet it?
>
> A directly democratic organizational structures, and the participation of me
> and you in such an organizations are required.

You mean, if we vote to close down McDonalds, the corporation will
just shut down willingly and no enforcement will be required?  And if
we vote to take your house away from you, you will willingly move into
the street?  Or do you mean there must also be an executive component
of the structure that enforces our purely democratic decisions by
coercion, and do you mean there must also be a judical component of
the structure that can invalidate our purely democratic decisions and
its decisions are final and enforcable by the executive component?

> >"That is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism:
> >the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority,
> >and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met."
>
> Authority is legitimate, when it seems to know what it is talking about.
> Evidence of that becomes clear in a free society. There are people who are
> "authorities," for example, on how to build a good house. If someone builds
> shitty houses, they shouldn't be allowed to do so by the people who will have
> to eventually live in them.

It sounds like you're suggesting that I get out the Winchester if my
builder refuses to fix the leaks.

But it is so easy to talk this game.  What is the complete structural
model of an anarchist government for a country of 260 million people?
At least make a start at it.  I'll jump in when I see the pattern
developing.

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