This e-text is copyright Tomas F J Kriha 1994. All rights reserved. Do not distribute or publish this e-text without the express prior permission of the author. This e-text is based substantially on a paper submitted for assessment towards a BA majoring in political science at Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). All opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Victoria University of Wellington, nor any of its staff. **************************************************************** C Y B E R A N A R C H I S M Tomas F J Kriha **************************************************************** "All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable." -- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, _Les Confessions d'un Revolutionnaire_ **************************************************************** I N T R O D U C T I O N **************************************************************** "[The] Internet has for years been a nearly perfect laboratory for testing the democratic principles of free speech and self- governance." [1] -- Peter H Lewis, _New York Times_ correspondent "Most people who get their news from conventional media have been unaware of the wildly varied assortment of new cultures that have evolved in the world's computer networks over the past ten years. Most people who have not yet used these new media remain unaware of how profoundly the social, political, and scientific experiments underway today via computer networks could change our lives in the near future." -- Howard Rheingold, editor of the _Whole Earth Review_ [2] The Internet has recently received unprecedented mass-media exposure as a potent device for influencing the political decision-making process. Most of this coverage ignores the implications of the new *kind* of communication the Internet enables, and the new *kind* of community it produced: a community of **voluntary associations based on common interests within an environment lacking centralised coercive authority**. This paper examines the nature of this anarchist society--a community without a state. Max Weber defined a state as a "human community that (successfully) claims the _monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force_ within a given territory"; consequently, "if no social institutions existed which knew the use of violence, then the concept of 'state' would be eliminated, and a condition would emerge that could be designated as 'anarchy', in the specific sense of the word". [3] The Internet is capable of creating precisely such an anarchy. The object of this paper is *not* to analyse the Internet's influence on the external world as the mass-media has done; rather, it is to analyse the implications of the Internet as a political environment **in its own right**. **************************************************************** P A R T O N E The Global Network of Networks: the Internet **************************************************************** "Each of the small colonies of microorganisms--the communities on the Net--is a social experiment that nobody planed but that is happening nonetheless." [4] -- Howard Rheingold A brief overview of the technical history of the Internet is necessary in order to explain why the Internet tend to encourage, as a matter of structural necessity, an anarchist environment. **************************************************************** A Short History of the Internet [5] The word "Internet" means, literally, a network of networks. The first prototype of today's Internet was an experimental four- node network--between UC of Los Angeles, Stanford University, UC Santa Barbara, and University of Utah--a quarter of a century ago in 1969. This "internetworking" project (hence "Internet") was patronised by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which hoped to design a computer network that could survive partial destruction in the event of a nuclear attack. This objective resulted in three fundamental design elements of the Internet: (1) The networked computers are capable of remote operation. Further, the network allows an assorted range of computers communicate "transparently". (2) The network has no centralised administrative core required for it to operate. Any two connected sites are able to communicate. (3) The model governing communication between source and destination sites *assumes* that the network is unreliable and expects the imminent collapse of any portion of the network. In this event, sites merely re-route data packets around the collapsed portion. This research culminated in the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANet) which was "delivered" to the Defense Communications Agency as an operational network in 1975. The core of the ARPANet system of networks was a mutually agreed method of communicating: the TCP/IP [6] Protocol Suite. The early 1980s saw a consolidation of many diverse local area networks as they adopted the TCP/IP protocol and connected to the Internet in increasing numbers. The formation of the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNet) in 1986 initiated the diversification of Internet sites from government agencies to the educational, commercial, and private sectors. Since then, in the words of Vinton Cerf (who worked on the ARPANet project since 1969), the Internet has been "well beyond critical mass" [7] and steadily expanding at an exponential rate. Far surpassing the modest ARPANet which initially networked a mere one thousand users in 1969, the Internet currently houses an estimated 30 million virtual residents (growing by 15% per month). [8] The Internet is no longer the exclusive domain of United States government agencies; it is rapidly becoming commercialised, privatised, and internationalised. More importantly, the recent convergence of two previously independently developing technologies--high speed global telecommunications and cheap yet powerful personal computers-- has made the Internet widely accessible to the wider public. **************************************************************** The Internet Today The Internet's ARPANet military ancestry explains--apart from why acronym dictionaries are so common on the Internet--the origins of its essential characteristic: the lack of centralised structure, authority, and funding. Whether or not the anarchist nature of the Internet was consciously cultivated by its early population (among educational and an public service professionals) is often debated, but is largely irrelevant. The decentralised design structure of the Internet will inevitably encourage the development of an anarchist environment, and this is reflected in its management and funding structures. The closest approximation to a ruling body the Internet has is the Internet Society (ISOC), a voluntary membership organisation promoting information exchange via Internet technology. The Society's most influential role, of developing and maintaining network protocols, is carried out by the Internet Architecture Board of ISOC created in 1983 to coordinate technical management and direction of the Internet. (Despite this apparent central authority, the development of Internet protocols is largely, and increasingly, the product of "a collaboration among cooperating parties".) [9] Each section of the Internet is self-funding, though in practice some networks receive subsidies from governmental and corporate sponsors. (Although the public supply of technical and financial means is diminishing due to escalating commercial investment throughout the Internet, it is still relatively influential in the United States, France, and Japan.) [10] Any site using the TCP/IP protocol can connect to the Internet merely by establishing a telecommunications link (at its own expense) with an existing Internet site. This environment produces an organisational structure remarkably similar to Robert Nozick's vision of a minimalist state: a "meta-utopia" within which smaller utopian communities (such as Internet sites) develop as free associations. In his words, "though the framework [of the meta-utopia] is libertarian and _laissez-faire_, _individual communities within it need not be_, and perhaps no community within it will choose to be so". [11] **************************************************************** P A R T T W O The Global Village: Cyberspace **************************************************************** "Cyberspace [is a] consensual hallucination." -- William Gibson, novelist [12] An entirely distinct environment--parallel to the "confederal" Internet structures--emerged: cyberspace. The term "cyberspace" was coined by William Gibson in his novel _Neuromancer_ to describe an abstract conceptual reality created by Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Cyberspace is an abstract space of knowledge and communication. Although cyberspace is very much a "virtual reality" in that it does not *physically* exist--for it is merely a representation of knowledge and communication in the minds of network users--it is *a* reality nonetheless. (Indeed, for many it *is* reality!) Gibson derived "cyberspace" from the word "cybernetics" (the study of communication and control systems). Communication and information is the life-blood of cyberspace; cyberspace is, for want of better terms, an "infocracy" or "cybercracy". Cyberspace has reduced political society to its essence: social interaction facilitated by communication. **************************************************************** Computer Mediated Communication "Although the network was originally supposed to connect people with computers, what they really spent time doing was connecting with one another." -- Sara Kiesler, social psychologist [13] Although ARPANet was designed with the remote operation of computers in mind, the TCP/IP protocol also made possible the remote communication of information by network users (viz. CMC). The communication of information is now the primary function of the Internet. The assorted cybermedia [14] (communication and control media) used on the Internet--from e-mail to Usenet news, to real-time conferences, to file archives, to hypertext/hypermedia--all perform functions which may be classified according to three kinds of CMC defined by the number of senders and recipients: personal *correspondence*, *publication*, and *conferences*. Particular cybermedia need not be restricted to a single CMC function, though many are. KINDS OF CMC TYPE SENDER(S) RECIPIENT(S) -------------------------------------- Personal Single Single Publication Single Multiple Conference Multiple Multiple For example, the Usenet news network organises conferences in over 9,000 [15] globally distributed newsgroups defined heirachically by subject-matter. (Such as soc.culture.new-zealand, alt.politics, or alt.politics.libertarian.) Sites are free to choose which newsgroups they "carry" to and from other sites. Any user may view, post, and reply to messages in newsgroups carried by their site. Therefore, Usenet is a "conference" cybermedia. By contrast, e-mail may be used to send private messages to a particular address ("correspondence"), a group of addresses on a recipient list ("publication"), or to a mailing list ("conference"). In the later case, list subscribers may send messages to the list address, which then automatically forwards the messages directly to all other subscribers. ***Cyberspace is created and maintained by the collective use of these three kinds of cybermedia by CMC.*** **************************************************************** Liberti, Igaliti, Fraterniti... and Cyberspace "Ben Franklin would have been the first owner of an Apple computer. Thomas Jefferson would have written the Declaration of Independence on an IBM PC. But Tom Paine would have published _Common Sense_ on a computer bulletin board." -- Dave Hughes, online activist [16] Cyberspace is characterised by the *technical* equality and liberty of cybercitizens to access and communicate information-- individuals' *practical* equality and liberty being limited by their knowledge, ability to communicate ideas, and computer literacy. **************************************************************** Cyberliberty "People in virtual communities do just about anything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind." -- Howard Rheingold [17] "Other than flaming by the indignant and self-policing by commercial service providers who give subscribers access to cyberspace, there is no means for enforcing the 'netiquette' as it is called, of the Internet." -- Peter H Lewis [18] Cybercitizens have an almost unfettered *technical* ability to access and communicate information on the Internet. Their *practical* ability to access and communicate information may subject to three sources of restraint, if it is subject to any at all: (1) Domestic law: Most cyberspace activity will be subject to domestic laws (such as privacy, defamation, intellectual property, and censorship). However, most laws may be circumvented by emerging technologies, particularly those facilitating anonymous CMC (where the sender's identity remains unknown) and encrypted CMC (where the information communicated remains unknown to anyone but the intended recipient). (2) Internet providers: The provider of Internet access will often regulate Internet usage to a certain extent (for example, some sites refuse to carry "pornographic" Usenet newsgroups). However, the relationship between the Internet provider and the cybercitizen is one of contractual voluntary association and the cybercitizen often has alternative routes of Internet access. (3) Cybercommunity: Cybercommunities invariably develop societal norms of behaviour which are self-enforced on an ad hoc basis. These fluid norms are similar to Thomas Paine's "great fundamental principles of society and civilisation--to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained". [19] However, should a cybercitizen wish to exercise his or her ability to communicate, the Internet's decentralised structure makes it technically difficult, if not impossible, to regulate that communication as "the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it". [20] While this has made the Internet an invaluable forum for political dissidents and activists in countries where other communication media is censored, [21] it has also proved invaluable for cybercitizens flouting the law or cybersocietal norms. Frequently, self-regulation of the cybercommunity (the third restriction described above) has proved the most effective. Cybercommunities regulate themselves, not according to domestic law (which is rather a meaningless concept on an international network), but according to evolving norms which are "established, challenged, changed, reestablished, rechallanged, in a kind of speeded up social revolution". [22] Their development is governed by a curious blend of Weber's three types of authority: *traditional* (norms develop according to precedent to a certain extent), *charismatic* (norms can be influenced by high-profile cybercitizens), and *legal-rational* (norms are usually enforced only if they achieve some rational purpose). [23] These norms can range from the trivial (typing in ALL CAPS is regarded as the equivalent to shouting and is considered rude) to the complex (the creation of a Usenet newsgroup usually follows a loose procedure: a "call for discussion" of the proposal, a period of public debate incorporating many "requests for comment", and finally a vote). Earlier this year, a husband and wife law partnership in Arizona posted adverts in over 5,000 Usenet newsgroups. [24] This act did not breach any domestic law, but breached conventions against "spaming" the Internet (that is, the voluminous and indiscriminate random posting of messages in inappropriate newsgroups) and as such the pair were "considered pariahs because they openly expressed disdain for Usenet rules and 'netiquette' and vowed, despite pleas for cooperation, to do so again". [25] A professor of computer science at Georgetown University complained: "It took me longer than an hour to clean up their mess. I rely upon Internet news for many professional tips and bits. They didn't just take away one hour of my leisure time-- they cut me off from my source of news about my work". [26] Further, the cost of Usenet news is borne, not by senders, but by recipients via network fees. Cyberterrorism ensued: "flames" (scornful messages) and voluminous junk mail was transmitted in random e-mail, fax, and voice mail attacks; their home address, credit card numbers, and credit reports (cyberspace has also "democratised" the ability to snoop!) were published; and even e-mail messages containing death threats, forged in their name, were mailed to the President. As one computer consultant explained: "disproportionate response or not, they knowingly incited the wrath of the Net community by flagrantly abusing a communal resource shared on a cooperative basis by millions of people all over the world" and that "a lynch-mob style reaction is to be expected". [27] **************************************************************** Cyberequality "Hierarchy is irrelevant, because everyone has equal access to the network, and everyone is free to communicate with as few or as many people as they like." [28] -- Benjamin Woolley, freelance journalist "It is common [for virtual acquaintances meeting in real life for the first time] to be surprised by the physical appearance of people they know only by streams of text. In cyberspace; physical disabilities, racial or ethnic differences, socioeconomic stratas and even gender issues tend to disappear." -- Peter H Lewis [29] The above quotes describe two distinct kinds of cyberequality. First, cybercitizens have an equal technical ability to access Internet resources and communicate information. Second, in the absence of physical contextual clues (such as gender, race, wealth, disabilities) cybercitizens are distinguishable only by their knowledge and ability to communicate. Sara Kiesler, a social psychologist, observed that the use of CMC within organisations "can break down hierarchical and departmental barriers, standard operating procedures, and organisational norms". [30] Cybercitizens are able to experiment with different forms of communication and self-representation [31]--especially in real-time interactive cybermedia, such as Internet Relay Chat and Multi User Dungeons, where users may manufacture fictitious identities and personae. Consequently, writing becomes a performing art in virtual communities: "elegantly presented knowledge is a valuable currency. Wit and use of language are rewarded in this medium, which is biased toward those who learn how to manipulate attention and emotion with the written word". [32] The combination of this egalitarianism with cybermedia capable of "publication" or "conferencing" CMC--those which give senders the ability to communicate with multiple recipients--is a potent mix indeed. Never before has it been possible for any member of a community to publish to an audience of millions for no more than it costs (in terms of labour and capital) to communicate privately: "[The Internet gives users] access to alternative forms of information and, most important, the power to reach others with your own alternatives to the official view of events. Changes in forms and degrees of access to information are indicators of changes in forms and degrees of power among different groups." [33] **************************************************************** Cybercommunities "A full-scale sub-culture was growing on the other side of my telephone jack, and they invited me to help create something new. It became clear to me during the first few months of that history that I was participating in the self-design of a new kind of culture." -- Howard Rheingold [34] That communities should develop at all in an environment without a centralised coercive authority would be a surprise to many of the most respected political theorists. For Plato, complex societies required an effective division of labour, and therefore a hierarchical state. [35] Aristotle held that because individuals are not self-sufficient, the state is natural and therefore exists prior to the individual. [36] Thomas Hobbes predicted that the "state of nature", where all individuals are equally free, would be a state of war; life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". [37] The creation and maintenance of civil society required that sovereignty be vested in a "leviathan" wielding absolute power over citizens. However, the history of the Internet has demonstrated "whenever CMC technology becomes available to people anywhere, they inevitably build virtual communities with it"; [38] but they are built *without* constructing Weber's state (social institutions monopolising the legitimate use of force within a given territory). This would suggest that John Locke was correct in distinguishing between the dissolution of government and the dissolution of society, [39] and Thomas Paine in asserting that: "The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." [40] There is no "single, monolithic, online culture" but an "ecosystem of subcultures" [41] --cybercommunities are formed, not on mutually exclusive communities of *location*, but on overlapping communities of *interest*, which may be defined by a shared culture, religion, profession, value-system, or hobby. Because in cyberspace, time and location no longer restrict communication and the exchange of information, "place" is conceptualised in terms of interests (viz., the subject-matter of the information communicated). As these new *kinds* of human associations incorporate emotional place-like and practical tool-like functions, they are founded "on a shared need for information and emotional support". [42] Marc Smith [43] observed that cybercommunities are formed by isolated individuals banding together in a competitive environment and are bound together by three kinds of "collective goods": social network capital, knowledge capital, and communion. The common interest of members of the community in its collective goods results in an informal (and often unnoticed) social contract creating an information "gift- economy": "In some cases I can put the information in exactly the right place for ten thousand people I don't know, but who are intensely interested in that specific topic, to find it when they need it. And sometimes, one of the ten thousand people I don't know does the same thing for me." [44] Whether one is motivated by an indirect self-interest where one vicariously benefits from the community, or a proximate self- interest, the effect is much the same: a economy based on indirect reciprocity (quite unlike conventional economies) develops: "Sure, it may take a few days, but I can get a number of answers on virtually any subject or field of endeavour just by asking, and those who take their time to reply do so for no reward other than increasing the chance that their future queries will likewise find willing respondents." [45] The gift economy is accentuated in smaller cybercommunities where individual members are well-known: "A sociologist might say that my perceived helpfulness increased my pool of social capital. I can increase your knowledge capital and my social capital at the same time by telling you something that you need to know, and I could diminish the amount of my capital in the estimation of others by transgressing the group's social norms." [46] **************************************************************** P A R T T H R E E Cyberanarchism? **************************************************************** "There is an intimate connection between informal conversations, the kind that take place in communities and virtual communities, in the coffee shops and computer conferences, and the ability of large social groups to govern themselves without monarchs or dictators." -- Howard Rheingold [47] "Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government." -- Thomas Paine, in _The Rights of Man_ [48] This paper has described the nature of two distinct but parallel political environments on the Internet. One is the physical Internet infrastructure, having its origins in the ARPANet military research network; the other is cyberspace, the virtual reality created by CMC: PARALLEL POLITICAL ENVIRONMENTS ENVIRONMENT PHYSICAL (INTERNET) VIRTUAL (CYBERSPACE) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Communal unit: Internet provider Community of interest Structure: Confederal Anarchic Relations governed by: Contract Communal norms based on gift economy/self interest The most controversial claim in the above table is that cyberspace is an anarchic environment. Some anarchists and libertarians have argued that cyberspace cannot be considered truly anarchic, and is only anarchic superficially, because of: first, the role of the United States government in establishing, developing, and maintaining the Internet; secondly, the continuing influence of domestic law and Internet providers on the behaviour of cybercitizens; and thirdly, the unequal distribution of power caused by practical variations in computer literacy and the ability to communicate. All these claims may be countered to a certain extent by recalling Weber's apt definition of the state as: social institutions monopolising the legitimate use of force within a given territory. Applying this definition, cyberspace is anarchic *as a matter of fact*--whether it fulfils any anarchist ideals is another matter entirely. Unless anarchy is universal, no anarchist environment will be immune to *external* influences (such as other governments). *Internal* sources of authority (such as Internet providers, cybersocietal norms, and other cybercitizens) are natural anarchic elements, *provided* they do not monopolise the legitimate use of force. Indeed, such sources of authority strongly resemble those found in anarcho- syndicalist and anarcho-communist theory, such as Kropotkin's mutual-aid communities. (It should also be noted that, by insulating individuals from the need for physical contact, members of a cybercommunity are insulated from the worst effects of any potential coercion.) What of the future of cyberanarchism? Rheingold believes that the futures of both cyberspace and of human community, are inextricably linked. There is certainly *potential* for cyberspace to bypass the increasingly centrally controlled and funded conventional media and perhaps even to resurrect citizen based democracy (at least in cyberspace itself). Cyberspace could become Habermas' ideal public sphere where opinions are formed in public by citizens free from coercion--a global citizen designed and citizen controlled electronic _agora_ in the Athenian tradition. However, as in any citizen controlled information system, "responsibility for organising information shifts from the writer to the reader". [49] CMC may create intellectual, social, commercial, and political leverage, within cyberspace, "but the technology will not in itself fulfil that potential; this latent technical power must be used intelligently and deliberately by an informed population". [50] It seems clear that for cyberanarchism to survive as a functioning form of organisation, there needs to be a consensus among community members to respect the equal liberty of all other community members. Whether this consensus can survive the rapid influx of newcomers, who have not been socialised according to this set cybersocietal values, is uncertain. **************************************************************** Bibliography Adkins, N F (editor) (1953): _Thomas Paine: Common Sense and other Political Writings_, The Liberal Arts Press, New York. Aristotle (1885): _Politics_, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Available via FTP "ftp://ftphost.vuw.ac.nz/pub/etext/ Literature/Aristotle/politics.gz". Selections also available in: Brown (1990):99-137. Arnum, E (1994): _Correlation of GNP/GDP to Number of Internet Hosts in July 1994_, Internet Society. Available via FTP at "ftphost.waikato.ac.nz/pub/netinfo/isoc/charts". Brown, R (1990): _Classical Political Theories: From Plato to Marx_, Macmillan, New York. Cerf, V (1993a): _A Brief History of the Internet and Related Networks_. Available via gopher at "gopher://is.internic.net/11/ infoguide/about-internet/history/". -- (1993b): _How the Internet Came to Be_. Available via gopher at "gopher://is.internic.net/11/infoguide/about- internet/history/". Crowder, G (1991): _Classical Anarchism: The Political Thought of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin_, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Electronic Frontier Foundation (1994): _EFF's Guide to the Internet_, (formerly known as _The Big Dummies' Guide to the Internet_), Version 2.3, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Washington. Available via FTP at "ftp.eff.org" and via WWW at "http://www.eff.org". Held, D, _et al_ (editor) (1985): _States and Societies_, Blackwell, Oxford. Internet Society (1994): _Latest Internet Measurements Reveal Dramatic Growth in 1994_, Press Release: 4 August 1994. Kehoe, B P (1993): _Zen and the Art of the Internet_, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Krol, E; Hoffman, E (1993): _FYI on "What is Internet?"_, Internet Society (FYI 20, RFC 1462). To obtain this document, send an e-mail message to "nis-info@nis.merit.edu" with "send access.guide" in the body of the message. Lewis, P H (1994a): "Staking a Claim on the Virtual Frontier" in: _The New York Times_, 2 January, 1994. -- (1994b): "Strangers, Not Their Computers, Build a Network in Time of Grief" in: _The New York Times_, 8 March 1994, pp A1, D2. -- (1994c): "An Ad (Gasp!) in Cyberspace" in: _The New York Times_, 19 April 1994, pp D1, D2. -- (1994d): "Anarchy, a Threat on the Electronic Frontier?" in: _The New York Times_, 11 May 1994, pp D1, D7. -- (1994e): "Sneering at a Virtual Lynch Mob" in: _ibid_, p D7. -- (1994f): "On the Internet, Dissidents' Shots Heard 'Round the World" in: _The New York Times_, 5 June 1994, p E18. Lohr, S (1994): "Can E-Mail Cachet = jpmorgan@park.ave?" in: _The New York Times_, April 1994 [exact date unknown], pp A1, D4. Markoff, J (1994): "The Rise and Fall of Cyber Literacy" in: _The New York Times_, 1994 [exact date unknown], pp 1, 5. Plato (1894): _The Republic_, translated by Benjamin Jowett. Available via FTP at "ftp://ftphost.vuw.ac.nz/pub/etext/ Literature/Plato/republic.gz". Selections also available in: Brown (1990):17-96. Spunk Press (1994): _Quotations: Proudhon_, Spunk Press. Available via FTP at "etext.archive.umich.edu/pub/Politics/ Spunk". Rheingold, H (1994): _The Virtual Community_, Secker & Warburg, London. Wolff, J (1991): _Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimalist State_, Polity Press, Cambridge. Woodcock, G (1962): _Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements_, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Woolley, B (1992): _Virtual Worlds: A Journey in Hype and Hyperreality_, Blackwell, Oxford. The development of concepts discussed in this paper was assisted by private correspondence with the following persons (among others who wish to remain anonymous): altaf@crl.com (Altaf Bhimji) bandit@cruzio.com (Bandit) bis4cg@de-montfort.ac.uk (Chris Gillie) brunell@gate.net (Dave Brunell) crm@lems.brown.edu (Christopher R. Maden) gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) gmcgath@mv.mv.com (Gary McGath) inst1229@cl.uh.edu (Don Blick) john@waikato.ac.nz (John Houlker) klacobie@agoric.com (Kevin Lacobie) kurt@data-io.com (Kurt Guntheroth) misc248@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz (Nicky Green) mg.crawshaw@auckland.ac.nz (Mike Crawshaw) muisca@aol.com (J. Rifkind) nagesh_rao@brown.edu (Nagesh Rao) petersod@cs.colostate.edu (David Peterson) porterg@gems.vcu.edu (Greg Porter) rschmidt@panix.com (Robert Schmidt) rsumner@osf1.gmu.edu (Robert T Sumner) spam@telerama.lm.com (Steve Marting) tom.biggs@dscmail.com (Tom Biggs) yngmar06@its.uct.ac.za (Mark Young) **************************************************************** Annex I: _Cyberanarchism?_ I posted the following request for feedback in several relevant Usenet newsgroups on the morning of 12 October 1994 (New Zealand Standard Time), and received over 50 well considered replies. My thanks to all respondents. Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy From: tomas.kriha@actrix.gen.nz (Tomas F J Kriha) Subject: Cyberanarchism? Lines: 53 Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 22:11:14 GMT I am working on a short research paper analysing the Internet community as a functioning anarchist society--that is, a community lacking centralised coercive authority. Many political philosophers have predicted what such a community would be like--most in an attempt to rationalise the imposition of a centralised coercive authority such as the state. Thomas Hobbes described life in the "state of nature" as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". By contrast, Thomas Paine argued that the dissolution of government need not entail the dissolution of society: "The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security". In _The New York Times_ (11 May 1994), Peter H Lewis described the Internet as "a nearly perfect laboratory for testing the democratic principles of free speech and self-governance". What do *you* think the results of this experiment have shown? I would like to hear any comments you might have on the following issues which I will be covering in the paper (some in more detail than others): * The origin and development of the Internet. * The nature of cybercommunities/cybersocieties/cybercultures. IMO, cyberspace reduces political society to its lowest common denominator: social interaction facilitated by communication. * Development of societal norms/conventions in cybercommunities. * The degree to which human nature can be said to be cooperative or competitive in cyberspace. * Liberty on the net: The *technical* ability of cybernauts to act, and the *practical* ability to breach societal norms/conventions (at the risk of peer-sanctions). * Equality on the net: The *technical* equality of cybernauts to communicate and to access, distribute, and publish information. The decreasing influence of traditional sources of inequality: wealth, ethnicity/culture, religion, gender, opinions/beliefs, &c. Please reply to me *personally*--preferably by Saturday 15 October--at: tomas.kriha@actrix.gen.nz BTW, if you don't wish to be quoted in the paper, please say so. Many thanks in advance; T. --------------------------------------------------------- \_ --- Tomas F J Kriha Email: tomas.kriha@actrix.gen.nz