: Floyd did a splendid job in explaining it further and my thanks to him for that. My question to you is, How do you have an "ism" and "ist" without "y"? Perhaps the "trailer park" has gotten the better of me here.Gideon was trying to point out that, despite the technical meaning of anarchy (a situation in which no governmental or external authority exists), the term has picked up the (inaccurate) connotations that were the source of the initial confusion. "Chaos," as I mentioned, is a more accurate descriptor for a situation of disorder, but the common usage of "anarchy" really does have the connotations you described.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong, Gideon.)
: Actually Christ gave His harshest criticism TO the religious.
Weeeeelllll then....Looks like Gideon and I have something in common with the big J! (ha ha, just kidding, Robert, couldn't resist.)
: If Christ's Name is being used to further man's will, instead of God's, surely there will be hypocrisy manifested.
Again, if I'm not mistaken, Gideon was trying to point out that, in many cases, it is difficult for most people to tell whose "will" is really being served. For example, during the US war on Iraq, the "american people" weren't being served, since we ended up throwing away our "peace dividend" that was supposed to come as a result of the collapse of the USSR. The Kuwaiti people didn't get one more ounce of freedom out of the deal than they had before (in fact, even Iran is more democratic than Kuwait!), so it would be difficult to demonstrate that their best interests were served. The Iraqii obviously weren't helped any by it. Remember, these are the wills of men and women, which should supposedly be less complicated, and less subtle and easier to figure out than the will of God. Things are done and justified in the names of God, Democracy, freedom, and other abstract concepts all the time. Gideon was trying, I think, to point out that a priori insight into whose interests are really being served is, at best, difficult, and more often ompossible.
: Perhaps anarchist could fly, too.
You say that as though you were sure that we can't...heh heh heh. If I'm not mistaken, a certain Rabbi is alleged to have once rejected all earthly authority and is reported to have ascended into the heavens. As Nasrudin once said "if all else fails, maybe I can get the horse to fly!"
: : Perfectly true. Governments tend to find anarchism to be repulsive; thus they try to destroy it wherever they find it. As such, large-scale anarchist communities have never existed for long. That doesn't invalidate the theory.
: Why then do you spend a whole life time trying to achieve something that will never amount to anything enduring? It sounds at best, a bit self-defeating, and at worst, a bit masochistic if you don't mind me saying here.
Again, what Gideon was saying is that most of the experiments in anarchism have resulted in persecution of anarchists by governments. To draw another parallel to christianity, early christians were persecuted, and even put to death for their beliefs. For anyone who doesn't accept or understand the beliefs, this certainly seems "self-defeating and masochistic." Does the appearance of self-defeating masochism invalidate the beliefs? I doubt that you'd actually support this line of reasoning, if you thought about it in those terms, would you?
-Floyd
None.
