> zaimoni@ksu.edu wrote:
>
> > 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.
I'm not aware of an instance of this "state of nature", so it's useless
operationally. Except to demonstrate its extreme instability, which
excludes it as a governmental form--such as anarchy, or anarchic-style
government.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////