You said scraping the old system in favor of a new one is an horrid idea. It has happened before and the world hasn't broken down to anarchy.

No. What I said was that scrapping the old system with no idea about what will follow is anarchy. I see anarchy as the road to bloodshed and sorrow. I can imagine in such a violent environment you might feel right at home. I have a greater respect for the life of all sentients. I do not sepnd my time wondering about why I do not kill the people I could kill.

It is most unfortunate. Nobody seems to know what this word 'anarchy' means in these days. This makes it such a simple thing for pedagogues to throw about.

From Websters:
1a) absence of government.
b) a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.
c) a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government and who enjoy complete freedom.

2 absence of order.

I know what it means. What is your excuse?

Lovely. "Pocket dictionary" definitions from the police man. Shall we look at a real reference? Perhaps Webster's International, if you feel this is authoritative:

"a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs."

Or, if you prefer, the Britannica-Webster:

"a political theory that holds all government authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocates a society based on voluntary cooperation of individuals and groups."

Americans. Always certain that they have it right.

I'm getting to the point of saying "Who gives a fuck?"

This... doesn't happen all the time... does it?

Or, if you need additional clarification, it is quite impossible for a state of anarchy to arise from, as you say, "scrapping the old system with no idea about what will follow."

What you are speaking of is simply chaos. To suggest otherwise indicates ignorance. "What is your excuse?"

I do not need one. I see what I see and hear what is spoken. When someone indicates that we should ignore baseline morals and ethics and resolve matters on a level of personal responsibility and accountablity, it is the common definition of anarchy. Wether it is an utopia for those who benefit from it, or hell to those victimized by it, it is also chaos, the absence of order and the lack of any governmental authority.

Exactly how do you see the definitions you provided countering my definition of anarchy?

Any time someone brings up nova society, honey.

Not all of us enjoy the luxury of living on a secluded island, either.

Well, shit happens, Preston. With your abilities, you could have easily managed to afford one, but you have chosen to be an underpaid and overworked public servant - so don't cry to me about it.

I did my time in Project Utopia and I still help people today. But I am sick of being expected to by yourself and others.

This happens every time that the idea of nova society comes up at this forum, and many other places. You have chosen to argue the point with Ashnod and Zima, and I have chosen to make a comment or two about it.

Life is about choices, Captain Preston. You choose one way, I choose another. It makes neither of us lesser than the other.

And yes, I do respect you and your work with the Boston P.D., and Neil is a sweetheart. But I don't appreciate you trying to take the high ground with me because Franklin and I live on an island.

And living on the island doesn't mean you're cut off from the world, especially considering instantaneous travel.

True enough. You did real yeomens work in Ibiza. I was out of line. I apologize.

Thank you, Captain. As I said, I do respect you and your work in Boston, even if it is a path I have left myself.

Anarchy literally means No government. In which case there can be two meanings.

The first believes man is evil by nature, so anarchy (no government) is viewed as chaos

The second believes that since man is basically good, anarchy (no government)is seen as an opportunity for spontaneous order based on freedom

I choose a third option myself:

If man is evil by nature, then as a nova, anarchy (chaos) will bring us (novas) the opportunity for spontaneous order based on freedom.

Some of you hold to the first meaning, others idealize the second. Still others fall into the third camp.

Which camp are you in?

The common definition of anarchy? So we now cater to the lowest common denominator? Excellent. I must have "missed the memo."

Anarchy is not disorder. Anarchy is the absence of government. These are not same. If you choose to think otherwise, I congratulate you. An understanding of alternative social models is most likely so much useless luggage in a police man's occupation.

It is all same to me. I much favor democracy to anarchy. The former inevitably disenfranchises its minorities, and (though I admit to nothing in particular) this gives me a job. I am most appreciative of that.

Yes. Words have a commonly accepted definition that are generally accepted, you elitist thug.

I look forward to the day when police are no longer needed. There are other things I would like to do with my time. I simply have great difficulty stomaching injustice, so until such time as we all learn to play nice, I feel that some sort of policing agency will be needed.

Mr. Rat, novas are capable of both good and evil, just like humanity.
I am in the camp that works toward the advancement of freedom, while understanding people (both novas and humans) will continue to perpatrate evil deeds. Order is only desirable were it also promotes freedom. Chaos is fine up up to the point it harms others.

It is the perceived outcomes of anarchy that are of interest.

Some view anarchy as leading to chaos, in which case it would be undesirable to them

Others view anarchy as freedom, which will inevitably progress towards order. In this instance, anarchy is desirable.

It all depends on how you view humanity. Do you have faith that humans will behave in a rational manner. Or do you think humanity will devolve into "Lord of the Flies".

Although my signature closely relates to my personal views on things relevant here, it does need to be said that, invariably, all societies create their own rules and regulations. Even in anarchy there are rules, despite what anarchists would claim. Without these (often unspoken) rules, effective relationships and societies will not form. Humanity had the advantage of slowly changing from instincts into subtle and entirely sentient rules. Nova society, assuming it is a necessity, does not have this advantage and we will all be in for a rough experience as rules are formed, changed, and discarded for new ones.

Oh, and yes, Mr. Rat, anarchy will invariably lead to a complex society and rules unless the beings that make up said society are wiped clean from existence. Otherwise shysters like me would have never existed.

The calls for ridding ourselves of human forms of government seem rather... questionable... to me. Novas as a whole haven't shown a whole lot of tendency toward behavioral differentiation from their human relatives. Chairs and houses and names and clothes and art and not-liking-getting-beat-up are all human concepts too, and I haven't heard much call for dropping them and starting from scratch. Why? Because we'd end up with more or less the same stuff we have now! And things would be really crummy in the meantime! We (most of us) aren't abolishing the concept of 'clothing' because a few novas have a few extra limbs. Instead we get stuff like Eufiber. Like clothing, but better! Good for nearly every Nova who can afford it! It leaves Baseline fashion in the dust and we didn't have to burn down a single outlet store! Granted, burning stuff down requires a lot less effort than making something that works better. Gives a feeling of accomplishment, I guess.

Unless I'm missing something (quite possible!) the folks calling for anarchy are mostly parroting or acting on reptile-brained malice toward a system which they do not presently control, rather than any significant interest in improving peoples' situation (with the possible exception of their own. Everybody wants to be the strong-Nova who forges his/her own order out of the chaos. (Well... I know I do)). When someone finally comes up with something better and the current establishment refuses to upgrade itself, then we can have a little bit of directed anarchy maybe. Until then, it'd just be an unpleasant waste of time and Novas and humans.

Ashnod, no one has suggested change that is positive for novas.

Well...crap.

I do not hold a romanticized view of humanity as good/evil. I do not see this problem as a simplistic 'choice' experiment of government/no government.

An individual human can be many things. Each individual holds their own set of ethical/moral/logical precepts. Humanity as a whole cannot be good or evil, because that implies several assumptions that can easily be proved false, not least of which is that you can objectively prove what is good and what is evil in any given situation.

Also, you cannot go from having government to not having government as though you flipped a light switch. Imagine, if you would, that you held a device that could, with the push of a button, kill every member of every government in the world. What would happen? It would not be Anarchy, as in the lack of government. There would still be the vast majority of people who would refuse to believe themselves to no longer be governed. Instead there would be chaos, with every individual who is motivated enough grabbing for the power left behind by the fallen governments. There would be additional bloodshed, caused by squabbles over these power vacuums.

There would be a massive surge of nova worship, as the baselines who can no longer take care of themselves turned to the most obvious sources of safety and power. And if you see this as a good thing, you are a fool. Only the week would turn to novas for protection. They would be a drain on the nova's time and attention, during a dangerous time. And those novas who would spurn such attention and worship would face the wrath of every baseline, not just the ones they deny.

There would also be a massive surge of nova persecution, as the stronger and angrier parts of the population seek out the most obvious targets. This would be very dangerous for the less powerful segment of our population. It would most likely cause our near extinction as a species, with only the strongest left standing.

Without government, every large city in the world would soon starve - unless that governement was very quickly replaced. And the most likely replacement for government right now is not novas. What I said above is true, nova worship and persecution would both skyrocket. But novas would not become government, and humanity is so accustomed to being governed that such government would spontaneously re-form if it ever absented itself. No, novas do not have the attention to detail, the sheer widespread power base needed to perform the duties of governments. But corporations do, and most likely they would quickly fill that role, and life would continue, with most of the world ruled by corporate dictators.

Sounds fairly fantastic, doesn't it? But this is the product of reasoning and logic. It is only one possible scenario, but I'm quite sure it's the most probable.

Of course, there are other choices rather than the immediate destruction of all government, but you were talking about 'Anarchy' as if it was some kind of choice here (you too, Zima). And I was just pointing out that it's not nearly that simple.

Let me clarify my position, Ms. D'Aronique:
No one has suggested sociatel changes with a plan for implementation that is positive for novas.
Your previous suggestions have merit, but I do not see the machinery coming forth to turn the theory into reality.

So you have problems with what I'm suggesting, or the fact that I don't have a stronger plan of implementation yet?

You have analyzed the situation correctly Alchemist. Those things would likely occur under anarchy. There would be nova worship, and nova persecution. Starvation may happen on a global scale as well.

Corporations are interested in profit, and it would be more profitable for them if novas ran those corporations. Baselines have no hope of competing with novas who have certain business acumen. Corporations not run by novas would perish.

I is my premise that such a scenario will happen anyway. It is in the nature of man, if not evolution, to eliminate species who compete for resources. If man at some point will seek our destruction, why not start the conflict earlier than later. Would not more nova lives be saved than if we waited?

And yes, what I am proposing is very "human". It is a natural reaction from those who are still tainted by humanity. Humanity is still inside us all. Do we want to become more human, or less human?

Without such a conflict, some latent novas would never erupt and would remain trapped in their frail and inferior bodies.

Not to be pedantic, Mr. Rat and Dr. Roberts, but corporations exist at the whim and will (IE - consent) of the government. Without the government's approval, a corporation cannot exist as a separate entity. If the situation described happens to occur, then it can be argued that corporations will have simply become the government and the words "private" and "corporation" will just be inaccurate labels of delusion.

Granted, I approach corporations and governments in a rather particular fashion.

And with such conflict, some latent novas will be killed before they ever errupt, and their potential, both for themselves and their offspring, will be forever wiped out.

The problem is that you are looking at things in the very long term, while the scenario I presented was what would happen in the course of perhaps a year.

I'm well aware that, in the long run, novas will out-compete humanity. Hell, I knew that as a baseline. We've only been around a quarter century, less than a human generation, and already we've completely changed the world. By the beginning of the 22nd century, the world will be completely reshaped. And we don't need to act overtly to do this. Our very presence, our opinions, the way we live our lives, all these things have so much impact relative to the impact of baseline lives that we merely have to exist in order to change the world.

Why must we revert to the old human methodologies of war and conquest? As you say, we could simply start companies, and out-compete them. Or we could find a way to convert them all, every last one of them, into novas.

There are many ways to fight the coming battle. I'm only interested in the ones that don't result in bloodshed.

Ulysses: How are you doing? It's been a while since we had a chat.

You're right, as far as it goes. But I would also like to point out that, in the absence of government, corporations hold the most direct power and potential on the planet. This is partially due to manpower (including hired novas), and partially because they duplicate many parts of government infrastructure. Also remember, Project Utopia is technically a corporation, though one with special dispensations.

The latter.
At home, I have been trying to stress some of the simplest concepts, such as having us referred to as novas and humans referred to as humanity. As a group, we are people, or a society, but we are a people and a society of two separate sentient species.

Oh fuck yeah Mythie, happens all the goddamn time.

Stick to the threads about nookie and parties and it's still pretty fun.

Oh, and god save your handler. He done pissed off the Dark Princess. Bad idea. Bad fucking idea.

Hey man, you'd think all that tea-flavored harbor water would've given you an appreciation for revolution.

This is so totally cool. We've got the Stick-In-The-Mud cop pwning the mouthy Named-After-A-Shitty-Beer-Substitute, the lovely V being talked down to and the man who missed his calling as the greatest drug designer on the face of the planet playing nice guy.

Who said political discussions are boring?

Fuck I love you guys.

Alchemist: It's been a busy few weeks, especially with that appeal I've got coming up at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The next time you're in DC you need to come to lunch. How about you, the Windy City treating you well enough?

And I agree, corporations are quite similar to governments with their levels of complexity. However, many of the things that necessitate that structure are generated by statutes and other forms of law. For example, many compliance and securities departments of a corporation would be useless if there were no governments. If the corporations could move away from their primary goal, to make money, and shift it to stability, creating law and order, then it could work. The problem is that the entity that would come out of that does not sound like a corporation.

Umm, guys, ain't none of you realisin' we're still human?

PU's done plenty of good with nova law an' stuff, so why're ya bitchin'?

No law = real bad.

It was exact attitude and thinking that led to the Hell that was Ibiza.

We bitch because Project Utopia, for all of the good it does do, has become a major roadblock in the advancement of nova rights and nova-human relations. It is your own propoganda that divides the world between Project Utopia and the Teragen. You conviniently ignore all of us who are not in either camp.
I am not a Terat Terrorist.
I am not an Utopian Whore.
I am a nova. I am a Free Man.

Look, I ain't as smart as ya an' the rest, okay? But I can say that if it weren't for the Zurich Accord, none of us would be here talkin' about nova rights, 'cause we wouldn't have had that right ta begin with if countries like China an' that had gotten their way.