Yes, you're right: the interviewee (MT) uses the word - erroneously - in both senses, without realising he's contradicting himself by saying first that social conduct in his world
is based on players' self-rule and then going on to say that his authority is fast becoming 'autocratic' (i.e. totalitarian).
the point he's apparently making is that self-rule is the norm for vast sections of eve space that remain free from 'policing' but authority inside the big corporations/alliances of eve tends to be autocratic (i.e. centralised in the hands of one person). yet,
there is no logical connection between the two: there's no proof - neither in the real world nor in eve - that self-rule leads to totalitarianism.
g.
From: p2p-foundation-bounces@lists.ourproject.org [p2p-foundation-bounces@lists.ourproject.org] on behalf of Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis [xekoukou@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:09 PM
To: P2P Foundation mailing list
Subject: Re: [P2P-F] autocracy as most efficient governance?
I think that what he is saying is that he is the ultimate ruler, ie an autocracy.
2011/7/13 George Dafermos
<G.N.Dafermos@tudelft.nl>
Hi Michel,
there's a basic misunderstanding here. the passage conflates *autocracy* with *autarchy* (i understand that greek words can be confusing..). the author uses the former term to refer to a situation 'where players rule themselves'. That is, what he means to say
is 'self-rule', self-government. that being the case, (s)he should have used the word autarchy instead; or even better: self-rule or self-management. in light of this correction, the subject line of your email should read: 'self-government as the most efficient
governance?'
x,
g.
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis