Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change (Anarchy)
Fri, 27 Dec 96 12:16:53 GMT

Martz wrote:

> "Wade T.Smith" <> writes
> >an-ar-chy n.
> >1. Absence of any form of political authority.
> >2. Political disorder and confusion.
> >3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
> >purpose.
> >Noun: A lack of civil order or peace. disorder, lawlessness, misrule.
> Thanks for that Wade. Of the three definitions, #1 most accurately
> describes the concept I am trying to portray.

I'd go with that. We seem to be moving closer to an agreed definition.
All I've been driving at is that it cannot last long without degenerating
into some form of society.

> That seems to exclude 2

That definition is more synonymous with misrule.

> but #3 is also applicable.

I find #3 quite interesting. It's a far more obtuse definition. Does this
mean that government can still exist, but if 3 is true then Anarchy
is present? Or do all 3 points have to be true for Anarchy to exist?
Surely not as 1 and 2 contradict when applied together.

> Of the nouns, only lawlessness sits
> comfortably,

A lack of Civil Order is fairly accurate, but the bit about peace is
fairly subjective.

> the rest are states which are usually assumed to follow
> from this lack of regulation.

Agreed, but it's what I beleive will occur when Anarchy begins to age.

Richard Jones
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."