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