Gordon:
> The theory is that whatever social structures the anarchists
> set up will be voluntary and transparent and that people
> will adhere to them because they wish to, not because they
> are compelled to.
Max B. Sawicky:
> If you sign a contract or ratify a constitution, you could
> say the act was voluntary and transparent. But then you're
> stuck if you don't like subsequent consequences. If you
> are free to renege on your support, there is no law to
> begin with. If you are not, what you have looks a lot
> like what we have now.
There are likely to be consequences to failure to perform a contract whether or not there is law about it. It may be true, however, that the law makes the development of such consequences more efficient in some senses. Anarchism supposes that the most important aspect of social life is freedom, whereas capitalism (for instance) is based on the importance of property and production-consumption as a basis for exploitation and domination by an elite. What is efficient for one is not necessarily efficient for another: One may have to choose one's favorite political form in terms of maximizing one kind of good (e.g. freedom) as opposed to others (services and goods; virtue and order; military supremacy; etc.)
As I've said before, I don't think anarchy precludes high technology unless high technology, for some reason thus far unexplained, requires coercion, that is, you have to hold a gun to someone's head to get large airplanes built and used. If it does, however, then obviously people would have to choose between large airplanes and freedom, just as they are going to have to choose between the transitory but attractive adornments and privileges of empire and freedom.
-- Gordon