>I would have thought that a lack of rule still means that there are still rules
>present otherwise instead of saying a lack of rule there would be no rule at all
I think it could mean either, depending on your definition of 'rule'.
But rather than get embroiled even further in this semantic minefield,
it's probably tangential to the issue anyway.
>This means that is is possible to have a lack of rule and misrule all at the
>same time. This is when true anarchy would occur.(When the rules that do exist
>are not adhered to and other areas that require rules are ignored.)
This is not what I'm talking about when I use the term anarchy. The only
rules that would exist are self-imposed, i.e. contracts that an
individual has voluntarily entered into. I suspect that would incline
people *more* towards following them (it would work for me anyway).
>Anarchy, of course, 'an-archos', without leaders,
Hear, hear.
> so I suppose a true
>democracy is a memetic anarchy... ;-)
Freedom of speech would be. But we all know that's not the case, now
don't we?
-- Martz