Yes, Anarchy may be an "ideal form of government" and seem like a great idea, but after all it is just another ideology that would fail in practice, like democracy or communism just doesn't "work" for everyone. And it never will; we just have to keep making improvements on what exists. It's like life in that I know it really is all useless and meaningless but we have to live as if it isn't, and pretend that we can actually accomplice something as humans, considering that sitting around and waiting to die would be terribly boring. ; )
Someone suggested that men crave Anarchy as a sort of rebellion, due to "tribal instincts" in competition for a mate. Okay, so Anarchy is created by men to act this out. This flipped a switch inside my head which reminded me of a passage from the play 'Antigone' by Sophocles, in which Anarchy is specifically refered to in a feminine sense by a dictator:
"Anarchy- show me a greater crime in all the earth!
She, she destroys cities, rips up houses,
breaks the ranks of spearmen into headlong rout.....
Therefore we must defend the men who live by the law,
never let some woman triumph over us.
Better to fall from power, if fall we must,
at the hands of a man-never be rated inferior to a woman, never."
Draw whatever conclusions you would like I guess.
However, I think we did jump the gun in assuming that all hackers are selfish anarchists. Is this a correct impression I got? I think many do it just to test their skill, as an athlete would. I have a friend that could perhaps be deemed a "hacker". We both consider ourselves to be 'apolitical'. (*please don't tell me it is impossible to by apolitical; ppl are always telling me I Cannot be what I am.*) Here is what he thinks, via an email. I like what he has to say:
>I believe that any sort of group, organisation, following is
>inherently wrong. Any group will become assimilating, elitist,
>corrupt and fill itself with its own hype. I wouldn't have any of
>that. It's building something negative. What good can come out of
>taking away someone's individuality for the sake of block numbers?
>Even anarchists have to wear the circle-A. They are hypocrites. None
>of them really apreciates anarchy, they are only following it because
>it's such a big fashion. You can't destroy something wantonly. You
>have to destroy everything you're not entirely comfortable with.
>There has to be a purpose to it, offering some sort of an alternative. >There isn't such a thing as a group philosophy. That's all wrong. That's >too limiting and sterile. A philosophy can't be described completely. >That's stopping it, and you can't put a stop on thoughts. Thoughts >change. As soon as a philosophy is established by an individual in a >way that someone else accepts it, it is destroyed.
Interpret that as you wish also. Sorry if this posting was too long. ; )
~kjs
<bold><italic><color><param>8080,0000,8080</param><bigger>"The art of
government is the organization of idolatry."--
</bigger></color></italic></bold><underline><color><param>8080,8080,8080</param>Revolutionist's
Handbook; Bernard Shaw</color></underline>