Attila T. Hun wrote:

on or about 970204:2343 jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said: +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: +> In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make +> perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_.

+I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, +between a "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy." Maybe you were trying +to distinguish between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a majority)" but it didn't come out +very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order. +It is the lack of _orders_."

disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility.

I don't know where these implications come from. Start with a primitive example, such as animals in the wild. Is that a perfect anarchy? Where do the differences come in for humans? Are they neo-religious perceptions, which could never find universal agreement? Or are they set in stone, in immutable, universal laws?