TexasCHLforum.com

I beg Chas.'s indulgence, because he has asked that "anarchy" not be advocated here on this forum. I believe he intended that we not propose unchecked violence. I don't even propose anarcho-capitalism, but not because I find it undesirable. Instead, I find that government is inevitable, so it should be as weak and limited as possible. FWIW, the authors or our Constitution agreed, resulting in the wonderful document they produced.

Texian wrote:There is a word for a place with no rules--------Anarchy!

The definition of "anarchy" is "without rulers", not "rules". Rules can be voluntarily agreed to -- we call that a contract. Folks in Houston are well acquainted with restrictive deed covenants, HOAs, etc. They don't need rulers to tell them what they can and can't do with their property: they knew the rules were before signing the contract.

For those who think that each day when they arise that they will decide which rules to obey and which to ignore, consider this: No social group in recorded history has ever found that acceptable.

Except for this, that, and all of these examples.

The current example of Somalia is not a peaceful paradise, but no one ever promised that freedom would be pretty. Anarchy is dynamic: a constantly shifting set of understanding between people. Think of it as freelance employment, where the terms are constantly in flux. It might be hectic, but it's not chaos.

"Anarchy" doesn't mean "bomb-throwing leftists", and it doesn't mean "chaos". There are numerous historical examples of societies relying on voluntaryism rather than authoritarianism. Some were peaceful and orderly, others were disorderly and violent.

At the same time, history is replete with examples of violent chaos under authoritarian rule.

Kevin