Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Self enslavement is psychological, we are taling about governmental enslavement. These are two VERY different things. Anarchy is considered by my history prof (back up roach?) to be the puirest form of freedom, and the complete lack of security. Anarchy has existed. When anyone lives outside of a governmental influence and alone, he is an anarchy onto himself. You don't construct an ordered society with anarchy, that's the point. Anarchy is the absence of any cohesive principle. I make my rules, you make your rules. Each man woman and child is their own country. You can make temporary or permenant arrangements with other people, but you are only heald to your own ruyle, and them their own. Law enforcement is impossible without a cohesive princepal (such as rule of law).
|
I have to admit one of my pet peeves is poor spelling. And you say you are college-educated?
I'm not sure you got your money's worth, to be honest with you!!!
...
But seriously, the purest form of enslavement really is anarchy. Societies are by definition made up of institutions, and institutions require rules to exist. For example, slavery and imperialism are both institutions with long historical practice. Neither rests on anarchy, voluntarism, or equality - and neither produces equitable outcomes. Both, however, are premised on clear (if informal) rules understood by all parties that prescribe roles, constrain behavior, and shape expectations. In the absence or Rules, you are left with a roomful of men without purpose, aimlessly shuffling about, bumping into walls, bumping into eachother and creating precisely nothing (besides nothing). Ancient cavemen even had rudimentary systems of rules and institutions. Nevertheless, I understand the romantic appeal of anarchy as an instrument of clarity and comfort in an environment perceived as indifferent and even hostile.