Heheh not again Pat. This from dictionary.com
an⋅ar⋅chy /ˈænərki/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-er-kee] Show IPA –noun 1. a state of society without government or law. 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. 3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. I think number 3 about covers it. Whenever I am asked about my own political persuaion I am apt to say 'well I'm a Quasi-Anarchist/Solicalist/Liberal. Whenever I talk of Anarchy it is as a political entity, and so an Anarchistic society or state is not contradictionary, and makes perfect sense to me. On 9 Feb, 16:03, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 20:45, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “I think you'll find the term 'anarchist state' to be a contradiction > > of terms.” – Pat > > > Yes, there are countless definitions of anarchy…most of which do not > > cotton to the state. Yet, IF there were a state where every existing > > institution was able to clearly support its own existence…that might > > be a state I’d like to live in. > > But that implies responsibility from within. and that, 'almost' > implies the kind of thing I speak of as 'The Kingdom of God'. A world > where we act towards one another as if we were responsible FOR one > another. Yes, that would be a nice world to live in. But it means > that we enforce laws upon ourselves, so it isn't really a form of > anarchy, as the law wells from within. > > > > > On Feb 8, 6:18 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8 Feb, 13:43, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ohh I don't know. An Anarchistic state would I guess somewhat > > > > 'police' itself wouldn't it? > > > > I think you'll find the term 'anarchist state' to be a contradiction > > > of terms. > > > > > On 8 Feb, 13:25, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 6 Feb, 23:24, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > " ... we allow the rich to get off with all sorts." > > > > > > > Nobody allows them anything, Neil ! For one, they are more > > > > > > resourceful, more driven, more smart than the bureaucrats, to be > > > > > > found > > > > > > out or to be found guilty enough to be penalised ... remember, ' I > > > > > > am > > > > > > with the law. It has nothing to do with justice.' Secondly, they > > > > > > are > > > > > > quite liberal to those who'd look the other way or choose to be with > > > > > > them. Why ? Because, they can. > > > > > > In other words, power corrupts. So, how do we take the power and re- > > > > > distribute it? And, more importantly, do we even have a 'right' TO > > > > > take the power and re-distribute it if we could? If we all did that > > > > > which we could simply because we could, that would be, by definition, > > > > > anarchy. That's not exactly law-abiding, is it? > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 8:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Go all the way with you on the reasoning Francis and then some. > > > > > > > Wouldn't stop me doing a deal (did one with a Shankhill butcher > > > > > > > once - > > > > > > > you know what I mean). For me the moral questions lie in why we > > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > the rich to get off with all sorts. I see this as an undecidable > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > can only do one's best with. We probably don't disagree much. In > > > > > > > practice with informants you have to make sure you ain't being > > > > > > > ripped > > > > > > > off (the norm) and that you aren't just making space for them to > > > > > > > take > > > > > > > over. We might also wonder why we don't ever seem to get our law > > > > > > > right. If we did we'd not fall into moral reasoning need so much. > > > > > > > I've been looking a cop blogs of late. They are a surprising > > > > > > > indication of how despicable our politics have become. I've > > > > > > > started > > > > > > > my own at wordpress (allcoppedout). A publisher is interested if > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > can write a book quickly enough - Monday books. Did wonder if you > > > > > > > might want to tell your own tale 'from the dark side'. > > > > > > > > On 3 Feb, 17:42, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 3 Feb., 03:10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No morals involved Francis. We do people for pennies in > > > > > > > > > benefit fraud > > > > > > > > > on the basis of information from much slimier sources. > > > > > > > > > This, of course, is the deeper point, Neil. I often think we > > > > > > > > want to > > > > > > > > have it both ways in the western "democracies." (i) We want to > > > > > > > > believe, at least at some level, that government is (however > > > > > > > > imperfectly) the result of our collective approval, the > > > > > > > > implementation > > > > > > > > of some kind of social contract renewed through regular > > > > > > > > exercise of > > > > > > > > the electoral franchise - "in the name of the people." (ii) We > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > generally agree that morality is important and even - in > > > > > > > > certain areas > > > > > > > > at any rate - demand morality from our elected representatives. > > > > > > > > (iii) > > > > > > > > At higher collective levels, however, we seem to have no > > > > > > > > problem in > > > > > > > > accepting a totally pragmatic, realpolitikal view of communal > > > > > > > > activity, which, ultimately, reaches its peak in the > > > > > > > > Clausewitzian > > > > > > > > definition of war as a continuation of politics by other means > > > > > > > > [actually a misinterpretation of Clausewitz's thinking, but > > > > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > beside the point]. This is a kind of schizophrenia, or at least > > > > > > > > deep > > > > > > > > inconsistency, in our attitude towards the "res publica". > > > > > > > > > I'm not in the least suggesting that I myself am free of this > > > > > > > > attitude! Personally, as a salaried, PAYE employee, whose tax is > > > > > > > > deducted at source from his wage packet, I have absolutely no > > > > > > > > sympathy > > > > > > > > for fat-cats, who get caught trying to cheat the system. I'm > > > > > > > > not sure, > > > > > > > > however, that I'm comfortable about the idea of rewarding > > > > > > > > criminals to > > > > > > > > shop other criminals. It implies a sort of double-standard > > > > > > > > which can > > > > > > > > often be the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Maybe the best > > > > > > > > we can > > > > > > > > hope for is that, having weighed-up costs and benefits, we do > > > > > > > > approve > > > > > > > > of this kind of action by our elected governments but continue > > > > > > > > to have > > > > > > > > a collective bad conscience about it, that we do not simply > > > > > > > > regard it > > > > > > > > as ok and go on with business-as-usual, even using such > > > > > > > > arguments to > > > > > > > > justify persecution of the weak little guys, often hounded in > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > welfare systems (because, basically, they're much easier to > > > > > > > > blame and > > > > > > > > nail than the powerful, well-regarded, big-bucks, white-collar > > > > > > > > criminals). > > > > > > > > > In this sense, perhaps we DO get the governments we deserve. > > > > > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
