Anarchy - definition:
We need to redefine the meaning of anarchy!
The confusion of anarchy with chaos is disturbing.
Anarchy is the rule of the self-righteous
After all, anarchy does become whatever we define it to be. Simply put.
You stay true to your name!
Can I call democracy or dictatorship anarchy?
Don’t think so!
But when somebody is called an anarchist, it is acting in a manner of self proclaimed righteousness.
The reason it seams chaotic is because of the order existed beforehand.
Blowing up railway tracks, killing hundreds might be anarchy during peace time.
During war times, none would notice.
So then what is the definition of anarchy (besides no government)?
Anarchy is the rule of the self-righteous
When the rules are bendable and adjustable to fit the interest of the person implying those rules.
No clear rules, just rulers.
For example:
I touch your forehead and your headache stops!
- It is a miracle from God, and I’am blessed.
- You are a witch with powers of the Devil, and shell be burned alive.
A rule of a King or a state of the church / religion does not constitute a government.
Hay. thanks!
That is exactly, what I was thinking of.
you see, we kind of accept, that anyone in power is the government, but in reality it is not true.
This is, where anarchy comes into play, a society cab seem like a managed or governed one.
When the ones in power are not interested or just simply incapable of governing, looking after the anything than their own self interest.
So a society in which no one is really ruling, or in control, but there is the illusion of such. Is that what you mean?
Almost there!
To be in control, or ruling is not governing.
When you observe a country or region under occupation, invade, oppressed, then it is easy to see the exploitation.
When it is in a covert form, it is much harder to identify (Catholics in England, being controlled from Rome)
Just as robbing, raping and pillaging by outsiders is not governing, so it is done by anyone from the inside.
When a country or just a village is overtaken by forces that only rule or control, it can not be considered governing.
It is anarchy.
Ah, I see we are narrowing down the definition of “government”–so a government is not simply that which rules, but that which governs. So how are we defining “govern”?
A governor limits behavior. A ruler dictates behavior.
raven, do you concur?
Million dollar question!
It is not like I made up my mind about this already, just thinking it over.
Most civilized countries have a government, but they can’t really govern the place, because of lobby groups and corruption.
The people with real power are boycotting the government creating anarchy, because they can get more power this way.
In most cases we don’t even know who they are. The private media is not telling, they are owned by the same group.
The rules are bent, elections don’t matter, and we are going to war again.
The English mobility is playing the Americans against the Germans, the Russians against the Ukrainians while the banks are making record profits.
The first world war, that almost destroyed Europe was planned, and executed by a single royal dynasty. The House of Wettin.
Who is in power?
The NSA is not government. It is a group of defense companies collecting military intelligence against the citizens of their own country, feeding it into tactical computers to develop war scenarios, and sell it to ‘political parties’ for profit. Are they really Americans? Unlikely! At least not in spirit.
Do you have any ideas on this? Feeling lost a bit.
“Anarchy” literally means “void of a higher arch”. It refers to having no dependable higher authority, “everyone is on their own”.
And religions do serve as governance (not government).
And you are presumptuously leaving out some very serious players in the instigation of the world wars. And the NSA is a sub department of the DoD.
Sorry James, you are a bit off topic, but I still address your statements.
NSA, whatever it was in 1952, does not answer to Barack Obama. In case you missed it. Evolution James, evolution.
Religion as you stated, serve a purpose, but is not responsible or accountable. (The Devil is in the details)
Define dependable, void, higher and authority!
In human society there is no such thing as “everyone is on their own”.
- Basic rule of participation: if you can’t contribute, then don’t.
To get back to the topic.
What about ‘informed consent, and participation’?
- Imposing doctrines by threat of expulsion is not related to consent
- Singing in the church every Sunday, is not participation
- Manufacturing in Bangladesh using slavery, is still slavery
- Playing golf does not qualify for public affairs
If people don’t participate, like vote, give their consent freely, and know what they are consenting to, then we can have a government. That might constitute as not a ‘higher arc’, but a ‘common arch’.
I don’t give a lot of credence to conspiracy theories. The older I get, the more clear it becomes to me that conspiracy theories are 1) conceived too simplistically to be pulled off in practice with any success, and 2) based on very little evidence and a lot of cynicism. Doesn’t mean conspiracies don’t happen, but I find what I call “mundanity theories” to be way more plausible than conspiracy theories. A mundanity theory is a theory on political corruptions based on stupidity rather than evil genius. For example, a hospital in Iraq gets bombed by American fighter jets, not because some psychotic military commander wants to harm innocent people, but because American intelligence (or lack thereof) mistook that hospital for a artillery manufacturing plant. Oops!
based on stupidity rather than evil genius ???
I concur, but it is even more dangerous, because stupid people don’t know how stupid they are, and you can not even explain it to them.
Evil genius? No, just greed, and common interest.
Crime statistics show, that greed and stupidity is a much more likely reason for criminal behavior, then genius.
But, at the end, murder is murder.
Starting wars for profit is still destructive, not being illegal is only a technicality.
So this is the question, in examples:
- France had a ruling class, that cared for nothing but their ego, was it a government, was it a higher arch?
- the Zealots of Jerusalem caused the fall of a great nation by religious dogmatic blindness. What was their vision for the future
- American generals in the Vietnam war sent thousands into certain death for nothing, was it evil genius or stupidity. How many officer have been shot by their own troops?
Even under strong rulers, and religious governance you still can have anarchy!
Anarchy simply means chaos. Not the opposite. We can define it by that means, also that it’s the separation of state, and that it goes by such for that it’s in that aspect and cannot mean anything else of what-ever else we wish it to mean. Anarchy is the loss of a cohesive function in that it’s an absolute chaos or breakdown of a system for what-ever interval. It’s a collapse of a system that is changing, under the influence of humans, thus becoming different in governance. i.e, Anarchy = dysfunction. 
There is no grey area with stupidity and genius yet only there has been so many smart people involved with crime there ravencry4all. It seems like you have more to get off your chest but really the basic fact is that a lot of over-ruling class system countries right now are in the transition into democracy and are, as we speak, evolving into what seems to be the norm. We see it more and more in media and even become so oblivious to such propaganda mixed-in with real news and facts, we just block it out eventually. Because we do such a thing not much of it is spoken out onto the surface and it isn’t even acknowledged for some reason. We try to come to conclusions on our own basis which is unnecessary but for real support we turn to world events and are persisted to speak on what’s current.
Unintended consequences borne of stupidity can have devastating effects, and those effects can propagate into every facet of social life, thus making the whole affair monstrously complex. It’s that complexity that compels those who want someone to blame to infer evil genius, because it would take genius to see a plan that complex through to completion.
So you’re right, stupidity doesn’t make the consequences any less tolerable.
But you still haven’t answered my question: How are we defining “governance” such that its lack, though some might still rule, counts as anarchy?
Interesting, how far you would go to step over the conclusion of a simple definition.
- Without going onto a complicated discussion about nothing: anarchist are called like that because they want anarchy, right?
Anarchists do not want chaos! - Chaos is not some glorified revolution, that will lead to an improved of anything.
It is more likely to cause along term depression, than anything else. It is not necessarily a human intervention either. - If anarchy = dysfunction, then it is not chaos.
AND! This is exactly, what my definition covers very well. Anarchy is a dysfunction in governance, and not a lack of it.
“governance” is the concrete activity that reproduces a formal or informal organization ; from Wiki
- governance by a religious organization is for the reproduction/recreation of that entity
- government by a nobility is for them
A government is an entity that governs to reproduce everyone under it’s influence.
Burning free thinking woman alive might constitute good governance by the Church of Jesus Christ, but it is definitely anarchy.
The creation of the Anglican church for the sake of the bloodline of a monarch, that resulted in a still ongoing slaughter of otherwise innocent people, might be beneficial to a dynasty, but not the thousands of victims.
All these negative examples do not negate the positive effect of great leaders like Elizabeth I., who managed to bring Britain out of anarchy, and forge it into a nation.
Or Yeltsin and Gorbachev, who managed to end the dictatorship in Russia, and Putin, who was able to protect the natural resources of his country from racketeering investors of the ‘West’.
When a single CEO can make $400 million, while collapsing the countries economy, I would call that anarchy!
And to top it up, it was in US dollars, ‘guaranteed’ by the people he ripped off. Very good governance.