On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:39:41 +0100, Matthias Warkus
<Warkus@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

>IsaacKuo schrieb:
>> On Dec 12, 4:28 pm, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
>> wrote:
>>> David Johnston schrieb:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:50:06 +0100, Matthias Warkus
>>>> <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> IsaacKuo schrieb:
>>>>>> I'll go with the "three meals" rule of thumb. They say any society
>>>>>> is three meals away from anarchy. Deprive the people of three
>>>>>> meals, and society breaks down. But keep the people fed, even
>>>>>> if it's dole queues, and the prevailing societal structures can
>>>>>> survive.
>>>>> Please give some examples of societies breaking down because of famine.
>>
>>>> Pre-revolutionary France.
>>
>>> Post-revolutionary France was an anarchy?
>>
>> I think the French revolution is actually where the saying comes
>> from. If you're more of a royalist, then the word "anarchy" would
>> be entirely appropriate. If you're more of a revolutionary, then
>> the word "revolution" would be more appropriate. Either way,
>> the existing society broke down.
>
>You argue that there was a period during the French revolution where
>there was no society?

When your car breaks down does that mean there is no car?

David Johnston schrieb:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:39:41 +0100, Matthias Warkus
> <Warkus@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>
>> IsaacKuo schrieb:
>>> On Dec 12, 4:28 pm, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> David Johnston schrieb:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:50:06 +0100, Matthias Warkus
>>>>> <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>> IsaacKuo schrieb:
>>>>>>> I'll go with the "three meals" rule of thumb. They say any society
>>>>>>> is three meals away from anarchy. Deprive the people of three
>>>>>>> meals, and society breaks down. But keep the people fed, even
>>>>>>> if it's dole queues, and the prevailing societal structures can
>>>>>>> survive.
>>>>>> Please give some examples of societies breaking down because of famine.
>>>>> Pre-revolutionary France.
>>>> Post-revolutionary France was an anarchy?
>>> I think the French revolution is actually where the saying comes
>>> from. If you're more of a royalist, then the word "anarchy" would
>>> be entirely appropriate. If you're more of a revolutionary, then
>>> the word "revolution" would be more appropriate. Either way,
>>> the existing society broke down.
>> You argue that there was a period during the French revolution where
>> there was no society?
>
> When your car breaks down does that mean there is no car?

When I last checked, there were some ontological differences between
societies and cars.

mawa

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:07:43 +0100, Matthias Warkus
<Warkus@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

>David Johnston schrieb:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:39:41 +0100, Matthias Warkus
>> <Warkus@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>> IsaacKuo schrieb:
>>>> On Dec 12, 4:28 pm, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston schrieb:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:50:06 +0100, Matthias Warkus
>>>>>> <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> IsaacKuo schrieb:
>>>>>>>> I'll go with the "three meals" rule of thumb. They say any society
>>>>>>>> is three meals away from anarchy. Deprive the people of three
>>>>>>>> meals, and society breaks down. But keep the people fed, even
>>>>>>>> if it's dole queues, and the prevailing societal structures can
>>>>>>>> survive.
>>>>>>> Please give some examples of societies breaking down because of famine.
>>>>>> Pre-revolutionary France.
>>>>> Post-revolutionary France was an anarchy?
>>>> I think the French revolution is actually where the saying comes
>>>> from. If you're more of a royalist, then the word "anarchy" would
>>>> be entirely appropriate. If you're more of a revolutionary, then
>>>> the word "revolution" would be more appropriate. Either way,
>>>> the existing society broke down.
>>> You argue that there was a period during the French revolution where
>>> there was no society?
>>
>> When your car breaks down does that mean there is no car?
>
>When I last checked, there were some ontological differences between
>societies and cars.

That may be true, after all unlike a car a society can fix itself, but
does it mean that there is no society just because society has "broken
down" ie. collapsed into a state of disorder? Do those differences
make a difference to the question at hand?