Re: John's: In anarchy -everyone responsible

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Attila T. Hun wrote:
> on or about 970204:2343 jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> said:
> +At 09:05 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
> +>    In a "popular" anarchy, Jim Bell's assassination politics make
> +>    perfectly good sense; but, a "popular" anarchy is not an _anarchy_.

> +I guess I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make,
> +between a  "popular anarchy" and an "anarchy."    Maybe you were trying
> +to distinguish  between "dictatorship of the few (or one)" and
> +"dictatorship of the many (perhaps a  majority)" but it didn't come out
> +very understandably. Put simply, "anarchy is not the lack of order.
> +It is the lack of _orders_."

>     disagree. pure anarchy is not the lack of "orders" --pure anarchy
>     implies that everyone is imbued with that perfect sense of responsibility.

I don't know where these implications come from. Start with a primitive
example, such as animals in the wild.  Is that a perfect anarchy?
Where do the differences come in for humans?  Are they neo-religious
perceptions, which could never find universal agreement?  Or are they
set in stone, in immutable, universal laws?