On 9 Feb, 17:09, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Not only that, but the 'Quasi' aspect adds enough ambiguity that no one could possibly argue with it. ;-) I do completely agree that there is a state called anarchy, but I've never seen a government that governs by it and, to me, THAT would be an Anarchist State. Note the capital 'S' on State. Governing via no government is still contradictory. But that, in NO way, nullifies your political leanings. Reasonable compromise? > 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 -- 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.
