From: athe nonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Mon Mar 04 2002 - 16:16:58 MST
>>[Zloduska]
>>>Okay, serious question now: do you define 'anarchist' simply as
>>>"anti-government" or pro- something else? If you chose the former, then
>>>anarchy is everywhere. I believe everyone should be able to choose their
>>>own labels and self-identity, but I ask merely for a clarificaiton.
>>
>>[athenonrex]
>>the literal, semantic meaning of the word "anarchy" is without
>>government. it is geek/latin in origin. when i call myself an
>>anarchist, i imply that i am opposed to all forms of government.
>>it's not that complex.
>
[Zloduska]
>Yes, but in proclaiming that, don't you feel somewhat obligated to offer a
>solution? Otherwise it seems kind of pointless to me... I empathize with
>being opposed to certain governments, but it does not appear realistic to
>think that humanity can cope without any sort of organization whatsoever.
>It is human nature for groups of people to arrange themselves as part of a
>bigger hierarchical structure, even in small tribes.
[athenonrex]
i have a question, and hopefully, your answer will answer your own question.
are you capable of governing yourself and your own actions without the
outside infuelce of a government to guide you? if the answer is yes,
then congradulations, my friend, then you do not truely need government,
do you? if your answer is no, then i suppose you do need a government.
i NEVER ment to imply anarchism on a wide scale basis. too many people
would not know what to do without a government. there are many people,
though, that do not need a governement to live. communal anarchism is
my answer. those that whould fend for themselves without the "aid,"
"protection," and "security" of a government should be able to fend
for themselves. that is my breif, general perspective of anarchism.
if you want to get anal retentive on me, we could go down the road
where you (or whomever) says, "but anarchism wouldn't work on a
large scale because not every one is an anarchist." followed by me
pointing out that i know it would not work on a large scale, hence
my "communal anarchism" persective. if everyone were an anarchist,
i assure you we would not be having this arguement. i do not advocate
"ad omnia anarchia" (anarchy for all) but rather anarchy for some.
and is there some cosmic law that there cannot be organisation without
government? tribalism is different from modern government in that they
truely have the potential from pure, unadulterated democrasy. if you
have a tribal group of, let's say, 30 or 40, everyone's vote really does
count; everyone truely does get a say. with large continental governments
like the USA, it is possible, but unpractical.
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get your free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
_____________________________________________________________
You deserve a better email address! Get personalized email @yourname
or @yourcompany from Everyone.net --> http://www.everyone.net?tag
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT