I am not arguing in favour of a state-style of government - but am
debating the governance of a large population and feel that ANY
governance is also necessarily a limit on freedom. Being a member of
that group, one accepts some of those limitations.

I feel that the form of organization of a population, in a
geographic area, IS also a limitation on behaviour and therefore,
operates within a 'type' of monopoly. If you are organized as a
pastoral nomadic economy, then that will be a monopoly of sustenance
style in that area. It would be very harmful to your pastoral
economy, for farmers to take your grazing lands to raise corn. So-
who decides how to use the land - remembering that in many cases, the
land may only be usable for a specific means of sustenance?

 My argument is that this
form of organization has an authority invested in it. But, this, must be
constantly, pragmatically, reflexive, open to debate, to alteration.
In other words - rules must be both stable and unstable at the same
time. This is not an either -or situation, state stability vs chaos,
 but a situation of both stability and change' - or, what I call, as reflexive.

As for 'central' organization - I don't see how a large population
can do away with it. I most certainly see the dangers in any central
situation - for such systems tend to redundancy, closure, isolation
against change - all factors within corruption and degeneracy. But,
surely there is an  'agreed-upon' rule-of-law that is accepted within
a community -  for a certain period of time.  I would term this
communal law as the central govt.  Certainly, if that communal law
becomes 'owned' by a separate group who alone have the right to
debate, articulate, change, enforce it - then that is no longer a
communal law - but an isolate and corrupt force.



Edwina Taborsky
Bishop's University          Phone:  (819)822.9600
                                      Ext. 2424
Lennoxville, Quebec          Fax:    (819)822.9661
Canada  JIM 1Z7