People come to rule other people because they have the desire and the ability to rule other people. However, it may be that a person who has the desire and the ability to rule other people isn't fit to rule other people.

Polling determines what a people want at a particular time. WW1 was a disaster. It set the stage for WW2 and caused great misery and sffering. However, from the history I read most people in most countries involved entered in it with great enthusisasm.

What is popular is the same as what is best if there is general wisdom and knowledge of the consequences. Unfortunately there is general ignorance, and we cannot know the consequences of our acts.

Yuyutsu,’
Remaining passive in the face of negative anarchy either means thar you grovel to stay alive or you get killed or enslaved, my preferred option would be to fight and kill if necessary.
Benign anarchy is a pipe dream.

Dear Is Mise,

«Remaining passive in the face of negative anarchy either means thar you grovel to stay alive or you get killed or enslaved»

This could be the case if indeed one deserves such outcome.
I do however have faith in divine justice, that it would not happen otherwise.

«my preferred option would be to fight and kill if necessary.»

And I very much respect and commend your choice, should that be your personal calling.

Go ahead and fight to deliver the righteous, to destroy the wicked and to establish good social order.

Just keep in mind that forcing your (or anybody else's) rule over others who have done no harm and pose no threat, which is what states currently do, cannot be part of a good social order.

«Benign anarchy is a pipe dream.»

It is indeed harder to achieve nowadays due to overpopulation.
But with warriors like yourself, nothing is impossible.

My preference, however, for the age we live in, is not anarchy but for people with relatively shared values voluntarily grouping themselves into smaller societies, each with its own agreed constitution that probably allows for some kind of law-and-order. No problem with that so long as participation is voluntary.

.

Dear david f.,

.

You wrote :

« Anarchy in sense 2 is NOT direct democracy … Anarchy in sense 2 eliminates ALL governmental decisions. … There are no governmental decisions as there is no government. Anarchy is not a form of government »
.

That’s not quite how I understand the two terms, David. I think the difference is a little more subtle than that. It’s not just a question of semantics. I’ll do my best to explain my thoughts on the matter in detail.

I see both as a system of self-government, government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The OED defines anarchy 2 as :

« The organisation of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government »

Whichever way you look at it, “the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation” would appear to be a system of government – a system of self-government “without political institutions or hierarchical government”.

In my view, anarchy 2 does not lack “a system of government”. If it did it would not be anarchy 2. It would be anarchy 1.

What I think it does lack, and what (partially) differentiates it from direct democracy, is that it has no “political institutions or hierarchical government”.

Another differentiating factor is that anarchy 2 is a system of “voluntary cooperation”, whereas direct democracy is a system in which “policies and laws are decided by a majority of all those eligible [to vote]” (OED).

A system of “voluntary cooperation” is intrinsically more limited in its scope and feasibility than a system in which “policies and laws are decided by a majority of all those eligible [to vote]”.

The practicability of the former inevitably limits its application to relatively small communities, whereas the “modus operandi” of the latter does not impose such limits, thus allowing it to have a more universal application.

This broader application is reinforced by the fact that direct democracy disposes of the powerful operational facilities of permanent political institutions and hierarchical governments that are lacking in anarchy 2.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu.,

.

Foxy quoted Bertrand Russell as saying :

« The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts »

To which you replied :

« Regarding Bertrand Russell … does he blame the Creator for doing a bad job? »

And I answered :

« No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell would never have blamed “the Creator for doing a bad job” because he did not believe in the god hypothesis :» – and I posted a link to an interview on Youtube of Bertrand Russell on God in 1959 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So-yHV3KoUI)

You then asked me :

« Fine, then why did he think that the world has a problem? Were the galaxies moving too fast or too slow? »
.

No, Yuyutsu, Bertrand Russell was simply expressing the opinion that most of our problems in this world are caused by the fact that “fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wise people so full of doubts”.

I tend to feel there is a lot of truth in that.

What about you, Yuyutsu ? What do you think ?

.

Conservative REPUBLICAN and Director of Communications at the Institute of Public Affairs, Evan Mullholland hopes (foolishly) to see Australia become a republic in his lifetime.

But, he doesn't want a bar of the current rave, which he describes as elitist, suggesting an 'eminent person' be parachuted into the 'presidency'.

"This model is completely unworkable for many reasons. A candidate for head of state could be elected with just 9 per cent of the national vote, where a preference whisperer could game the preferences between candidates to deny a leading candidate the role".

Peter FitzSimons has decreed that Australians " want an eminent person" as president. He probably has himself in mind, hence the dumping of the bright red bandana. Wouldn't that be a thrill and an answer to all Australia's problems!

Whatever, this 'eminence' would be one of their own - the sort already trying to wreck the country.