3 standard (as in, what you might find in a dictionary) definitions of anarchy are: 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Which of these are you extolling? Or maybe you don't mean "anarchy", but some other concept? Your description sounds more libertarian in nature, but that's a far far cry from anarchy, as libertarians recognize the essential role of government in protecting individuals' freedom...
Or by "true" do you mean something having nothing to do with anarchy at all, but a vague notion of greener grass on some other side? In a "true" aristocracy, rulers are just the people happy. In a "true" democracy, people are fair and justly represented. In a "true" despotism, the ruler is self-giving and wise. In a "true" normatocracy, everything is fun. In a "true" bluearchy, everyone likes to go for long walks....
actually I was referring to the definition of anarchy as posed by the originators of the (non)governmental system. "True" anarchy was supposed to be rather like communism sans government. Government, given perfect people, is unnecessary. I'm aware that "true anarchy" can not and will not ever exist, as people are too self-centered to really live according to it, but that doesn't stop me from trying. As it is I completely agree that we need a government.
My question here would be what's the difference between specialization and government? For, example, a society to exist where everyone rides bikes, you would need a person who specializes in welding, in making die cast parts, mechanics, someone who can sew seat covers, someone who can make vacu-formed rubber handlegrips (and moreover someone who can mine and refine petroleum for use in greases, rubber products, plastic cable housing, tires, innertubes, etc). That's just a very small example
( ... )
Even if you go back that far, wasn't there tribalism? Human tribes who hunted / gathered together and they'd have specialization in the form of shamans and fire carriers?
3 standard (as in, what you might find in a dictionary) definitions of anarchy are:
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
Which of these are you extolling? Or maybe you don't mean "anarchy", but some other concept? Your description sounds more libertarian in nature, but that's a far far cry from anarchy, as libertarians recognize the essential role of government in protecting individuals' freedom...
Or by "true" do you mean something having nothing to do with anarchy at all, but a vague notion of greener grass on some other side? In a "true" aristocracy, rulers are just the people happy. In a "true" democracy, people are fair and justly represented. In a "true" despotism, the ruler is self-giving and wise. In a "true" normatocracy, everything is fun. In a "true" bluearchy, everyone likes to go for long walks....
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment