--On Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:12 AM +0200 Lodewijk andré de la porte <l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
2013/10/2 Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@gmail.com>
I think you need to research the ABC of political theory before saying anything about anarchy. Your belief that anarchy is chaos is as unfounded as it is laughable.
Anarchy as a word does not mean a thing.
Right, it doesn't mean one thing, it means *two* different and mutually exclusive things. It is vulgarly used to mean 'chaos', and it's used by advocates of voluntary interactions to describe a social system based on voluntary interactions. You know, voluntary interactions : The opposite of cheering the drug laws of the american state.
It's the people in it that shape it. This is as much as risk as it is a feature. From chaos men makes shapes, structures. These structures must, by the very absence of it, reimplement what otherwise a government does. Of course the extends and all will depend upon the people.
A government is a criminal organization that violates rights to life liberty and property. Those criminal 'functions' of government can't exist in a voluntary society. If 'people' 'reimplement' what government does, then we are not talking about anarchy.
Economically I can fairly say that every function will be taken over by the group that can do the task as financially efficient as possible. Combining that with the historic fact that kingdoms and empires, due to people's ignorance, are the easiest structures to conjure. And that ease makes it have a good return.
Not sure what you're getting at...
So. My thinking is that anarchy that remains anarchy is in fact quite chaotic, as no rel leaders are permitted to arise.
I don't see the connection between leaders and their sheep on one hand and 'chaos' on the other. It's quite possible to have 'order' without 'leaders'. It's called self-government. Or doing what you like and leaving your neighbor alone.
Of course it's possible to have discussions together, to rule as a non-forcible collective. That's a very unstable situation however. Just like chaos.
Individuals can interact as individuals, voluntary and with no 'chaos' in sight. I don't see why it should be 'unstable'.
Now if you'd be so kind to tell me why your tone was so insulting and the reasons for thinking the way you do, then perhaps this can become an interesting conversation.