> I have the impression that Drakir and Traynor are using different
> definitions for "anarchy".
I'd agree with that. It is a point of great debate. Does anyone have
a dictionary handy, to give a definition that we can rip apart?
>
> I agree with Drakir that the total absence of government is unstable.
> However, what I'm abstracting from Traynor is that "anarchy" is *not* the
> total absence of government.
Therein lies our differences. Anarchy, to me, is synonymous with the much
used "state of nature" from which man has evolved. It is at this level that
government begun, where individuals teamed together into small groups to
preserve themselves, and then a heirachy evolved, and eventually
government and democracy were born.
This is why I have an almost XYZ like stubborness when it comes to government
and state occurring soon after alliances are formed within an anarchy.
> > > people caring
> > > about each other is possibly the one thing that would make anarchy
> > > fail, for *that* is where government comes from; a 'mother knows
> > > best' attitude gone mad.
> >
> > That's an interesting point. I'd still disagree, though, 'cos
> > it would be unpreferable (to me, at least) to live in a society
> > where I am under constant threat.
>
> But the government *is* a constant threat ;)
The lesser of 2 evils?
Drakir
------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
------------