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".
Roving bands of thugs are called LEAs. Flippant comments aside your comment above is almost entirely without substance, and what little substance it does have is simply not true. Roving bands of thugs are, of course, the same as undecided government, any faction competing for power will use unethical means to obtain it, as the desire to gain power is immoral in itself.
"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.
Quite so, but this is not my point, my point is that Rwanda is not an anarchy in the normal sense, it is chaos. This might be a dictionary definition that does not make it a real definition, I will not argue semantics with you anyway, you know what I mean by anarchy, if it makes you happy read "absence of any government" for anarchy, anarchy is not chaos, regardless of what the dictionary might say.
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.
Not at all, the original meaning is derived from the latin, "an-archy", the absence of an "arch" where arch is taken to mean a higher level, eg. a government. The common meaning is, as you say, used to refer to chaos and lawless disorder, this has developed in much the same way as for example the word "gay" once refered to being happy, and is now more commonly used to mean homosexual. Your bastardised definition is wrong, plain and simple, you know what I mean by anarchy, it`s irrelevant really anyway, we are arguing about whether anarchic society can be stable, rather than the specific meaning of the word anarchy.
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?
No cite examples of the correlation between my definition of anarchy, ie. no government, and war.
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.
No, you use an incorrect meaning that has developed due to commonly held misconceptions about the "need" for government. Anyway, whether your definition is the correct one or not, the point is if you define anarchy as lack of government leading to lawlesness you will clearly see a link between this and lawlessness! - you cannot just define your views into the meaning of a word!
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.
Of course, but this is all beside the point, the evil of government is not that it kills or makes war, it is that it infringes the rights of citizens by assuming a position of superiority over them.
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...
I didn`t comment, I made an observation about the general case and not your specific statement.
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?
I would say you attempt to justify your position that anarchy is not desirable by stating that most intelligent people feel the same is a democratic argument. This is clearly a democratic argument as it assumes that an idea without merit suddenly assumes merit if it is supported by a large proportion of the population or some subset thereof. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"