The Inconveniences of the modern world.

[Ian Livingston]

Just another note regarding current thinking on anarchy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igOWR_-BXJU
Can't help but love that there Bjork.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia:
> "how serious are the inconveniences that yet remain to be remedied by the state," ?
>
> Reading further in Nozick, I am convinced that TRP got this notion of inconveniences
> in his fiction from Locke--and/or Nozick's use of it.
>
> Nozick explores the notion of an 'association(s)' to protect a stateless people: "the inconvenience
> of everyone's being on call...can be handled...by division of labor and exchange." [that Chums Org?]
> "Some people will be hired to perform protective functions. [Chums mysterious first employer?] and
> some entrepreneurs will go into the business of protective services. [the later self-employed Chums?]
> "Different sorts of protective policies would be offered, at different prices, for those who may desire
> more extensive or elaborate protection."
>
> Nozick cites LATER Max Weber, one of OBAs faves we know, on the growth of modern economic and social
> orgs which I have thought, might describe how --and why---the Chums' mini-city is in AtD. One set of reasons anyway.
>
> I once heard a panel of two self-defined anarchists, one brilliant, imho, talk about the ways society might work
> under statelessness, theoretical anarchy. Then they had Q & A. Which they handled OK until
>
> the question of slavery under an anarchist society in the U.S., say, and the Civil War needed to end that
> obvious Human Injustice came up. Best they could answer was it was the working out of an individual state's rights' question.
> Which, of course, does NOT answer the question since the American Civil War was states' secession....
>
> They had spoken of states, lower-case, as in America's past, "almost" anarchist communitites in their early years, just "no government" groupings of foax....farmers, loggers, yeoman, etc., etc.
>
> But we know that one of the Chums most recent intercessions was The Rebellion Between the States.......one of those
> "inconveniences that remained to be remedied by the state", to quote from my start?  In a theoretical anarchist society, how
> do the most basic human rights get upheld if the totality of stateless
>
> In M & D, the word 'inconvenience' is used to mean the problem of caring [enough to be put out to help]. We have explored their
> bodissatva-like compassion.
>
> A--the?---most major meaning of The Chums plot, that booklength throughline, is as a metaphor for an association [Locke: an incipient social contract] that grows
> into a metaphor for the State that sometimes 'helps'' right massive injustices on this pendant earth. It "explains", fits, from beginning to end, especially that mini-city surprise by the end.
>
> We know the main satiric thrust of OBA's work, lifelong, is against the State's cruel self-serving
> evil and stupidities. Weber defines a State as the purported [monopoly] authority to impose by force.
> Such "power' inspires our author's lifelong anger.
>
> Yet, he also knows, as always, there is more until one touches bottom conceptually. The Chums become the necessary, complex, modern bourgeois Org,---the luxury liner that is also a battleship---- the modern state, that flies off to meet what it has created, Gravity's Rainbow.
>
> A---and I want to REPEAT:  Pynchon is a writer of fiction, using what captures his imagination, NOT a political theorist.
>
>
>
>
>
>