> From: John Morton <loncayeway@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> "Laws" are thus 'arche' because they serve as 'sources of
> authority'; to be in a state of an-arche with respect to law does
> not mean to be deficient in morals or ethics but, rather, to be
> effecting the application of deterence on a case-by-case basis
> through community-based concensus.
"Case by case" is so inefficient! All social groups need standards of
conduct, written or unwritten. You don't want to have to be called
before the entire village to find out if eating a communal chicken
(or having sex with someone, or killing someone) is okay.
Is it the lack of "law," or the lack of "authority" that defines
"anarchy?"
Thus Andrew's (and my own) quibble with the New Oxford Dictionary's
(and Moose's) definition. I think one can have "agreements" or even
"rules" (a "law" by another name?) that are agreed by unanimous
consent, and still be a functioning anarchy.
Thus anarchy is not lawlessness, nor even freedom from government. It
is more properly "freedom from authority," or self-government by
voluntary compliance.
> A good example of this would be the Native American "Healing
> Circle", which bring victims together with the perpetrators of the
> crime which affected them in a community gathering.
Another wonderful example is depicted in the film "In My Country,"
the story of the South African Truth and Reconciliation process that
took place following the fall of apartheid.
> ... the work I am doing might most aptly be called "anarchaeology".
Sweet!
:::: In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time
cannot exist. -- Kurt Gödel
:::: Jan Steinman <http://www.EcoReality.org>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|