A little more P-related: a lifetime of active self-organizing anarchism

[Michael Bailey]

Isn't the bureaucrat a product of the
civil service system, which represents a big advancement
from the patronage system?

(It's still probably ok to scorn them as long as we
scorn political appointees more)

Ian, as you mention,
anarchism means different things to different people.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism#Definitional_concerns)

Reef and those fellows he met in New Orleans and various other spots
called themselves anarchists
and thought of themselves as anarchists
and weren't very nice fellows sometimes.

Still there's something appealing about the idea that
there doesn't need to be a segment of society ruling over the rest.

It's a starting point, though, rather than a detailed action plan.
Definitely not a reason to go out and break windows or bomb!
Bookchin, Proudhon and Kropotkin, si!  Bakunin and Malatesta , no!

Ward's brand of anarchism makes a lot more sense to me than Webb's.
And since I like the idea to begin with, it's gratifying to see that somebody
developed it in an attractive direction.

Now, David, as to autocrats being more effective at city planning...
I suppose that quoting Salman Rushdie in Haroun and The Sea of Stories
("the king had had absolutely
nothing to do with building it, which is why they named it after him")
is a cheap shot.

I think what you mean is that under an autocratic regime, planners
can dispense with worrying about any impediments to their activity.

That presumes that a person or group is able to come up with a
plan so good that it overrides objections and what used to be called "rights".
Very close to what the Supreme Court decided about eminent domain...





-- 
-- "the problem with the deployment of frictionless surfaces is
that they're not getting traction."