On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 04:03:57PM +0000, Paul Bradley wrote:
Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.
Nonsense.
No, there is a distinct and marked difference between the absence of government and the presence of lots of different governments, the reason for war in Rwanda is because there are a number of rival factions all competing to gain power, a true anarchy has no government whatsoever. Rwanda is an example of undecided government, not no government.
Roving bands of thugs are not the same as an "undecided government".
"anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary
Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?
The entire first definition, there is no absense of government in Rwanda, merely a number of different prospective government.
Your sentence is an oxymoron, a self contradiction. A "number of different prospective governments" are *not* the same as "a government". Claiming to be a government is not the same as being a government.
Also, the definition of anarchy is flawed in that it suggests that the word refers to the lack of government leading to lawlessness, my definition, and I would imagine the definition of most members of this list, is that anarchy is the absense of government period. Just because the law we refer to doesn`t suit you does not mean it is not a valid system.
You are free to use the word anarchy to refer to asparagus if you wish. However, the meaning I used is *the* common English meaning.
In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs.
Cite?
Cite what? The obvious correlation that you agree to below? Or do you think I need to do find a study that shows that intelligent people don't consider an anarchical situation such as the Rwandan collapse a desirable situation?
The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious, if you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness" you are obviously going to see a correlation between this and lawlessness!
That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a standard, reputable dictionary. I realize that you have your own private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and an esoteric community. However, I am not a member of that community, so I use the standard meaning.
I could counter argue that the correlation between government and war is irrefutably stronger but then I would be playing your little game, and I don`t want to get drawn into that.
Of course there is a correlation between government and war. There is a correlation between people and war, between use of guns and war (so clearly we could eliminate war by eliminating guns), economics and war, etc etc. Correlation is not causation.
Your comment that most intelligent people consider that anarchy is not a desirable state of affairs does not even deserve comment, democratic arguments for or against anarchy are completely irrelevant and futile.
Gosh, I thought you weren't going to comment... Of course, democratic arguments for or against dictatorship are completely irrelevant and futile, as well. Just out of curiosity, what the heck is a "democratic argument", anyway? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html