Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mot.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!mnetor!mot!al
From: al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski)
Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.politics
Subject: Flirting with Anarchy
Message-ID: <431@mot.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 18:45:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mot.431
Posted: Fri Nov  1 18:45:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 22:02:08 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ  85282
Lines: 19
Keywords: USENET, fascism(;-), laissez faire
Xref: lsuc net.news.group:1444 net.politics:1790

*
Does the net really need people to keep track of which groups are
supposed to exist and to prune away unauthorized groups?  Isn't it
sufficient for each node to decide whether it wants to receive or
transmit each group?  When there is no interest in a group, nodes
will independently cease transmitting it, it will fragment and whither
away.  If a node is concerned about high bills, it will unilaterally
decide how to reduce its participation.  It seems like it all should 
take care of itself BY LOCAL ACTIONS ONLY. Why are there directors on the net?
Why do people issue rmgroups to others? Why is it necessary to vote on
things? Does not a node (the entity footing the bill) vote by deciding
what to carry? Has it been found that this kind of anarchy does not work
for the net and some central control is necessary?  It is not obvious
to me that it is; but then, I am not one of the old-timers on the net.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Filipski,  UNIX group,  Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ  U.S.A 85282
seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al, ihnp4!mot!al, ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------