anarchy was : Silk Road founder arrested ...

[Juan Garofalo]

--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.