I have a suspicion that Autolykos is one of those people that defines anarchy the way I mentioned in a post above, which was “without rulers”. That definition, by the way, is the etymology of the word. The way you have defined anarchy is chaos. Again, it’s fine if you want to use that meaning, but it is not the meaning people use here typically.
Thanks for the distinction, I think you’re right. I do make anarchy and chaos synonymous with one another. Perfect way of describing it, gotlucky.
@tri: I can’t speak for everyone but my “aim” is not to bring about anarchy or even to end the State (this would be nice, but so would it be nice to “end rape” or “end murder”… we’re stuck with all three types of criminals for the time being). Rather, my aim is more modest: teach people sound moral, legal and economic principles (h/t LvMI). In the long run, I believe that the enlightenment regarding such principles would bring about an end to the territorial monopoly on law and security (usually referred to as the State) - fulfilling the prophecy of Henry David Thoreau:
Clayton -
I think you’ll agree that words are just labels for things. As Shakespeare said through Juliet, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Maybe that’s what you’re saying above.
In any case, even though words are just labels for things, what they label affects the meanings of words used together. For example, if you define “anarchy” as “a complete lack of order”, then “I don’t like anarchy” can be taken to mean “I don’t like a complete lack of order”. But in that case, it says nothing about whether you like a complete lack of rulers (for example). Does that make sense?
Let me ask you this: do you think that rules and order can only come about in a top-down fashion? Or do you think they can come about in a bottom-up fashion as well?
On another note, why do you make this distinction between “local” and “nationwide” as if it has some necessary bearing in reality? It doesn’t. “Local” vs. “nationwide” is entirely arbitrary. What is a “locality”? What is a “nation”?
Before I answer these questions, could you please answer the ones I asked in my last post?
?
I’ve recently learned there’s an etymological difference between anarchy and chaos. Once I learned this, I opened the Chaos thread, which I think you’ve responded to. You’re spot on with the rose analogy. As for the labeling of words…we’ll have to discuss it a bit more in that thread because it’s pretty detailed there.
True, local to nationwide can be relative. Lets say I mean local as a relatively small number of people (say 2-10,000) and nationwide being anything 10,001 onward for the sake of this example.
Now answer those pesky little Qs bitte!
Not until you answer the questions I previously asked.
Since I did answer them, I thought this http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/143/581/8474739.jpg?1309732852 might make as much sense as your latest post.
As far as I’m concerned, you did not answer these questions:
-
What exactly do you think makes that inevitable? And why only “gangs” and nothing else?
-
What do you call a state of affairs where there’s no government but there is order for a group of people?
Now, if you want me to think otherwise, then I suggest you point out specifically where you think you answered them, or else (if you don’t think you have answered them after all) answer them specifically in your next post. Simply saying that you did answer them does not convince me, because I don’t see anywhere that you did answer them.