Brett_McS:I don't disagree with the concept, just the choice of the word, for "anarchy" also mean "chaos" ("Political disorder and confusion" , "confusion; chaos; disorder"). It is unfortunate.
In reply, I quote from an article that I wrote ( http://tinyurl.com/s39w7 )
One of
the erroneous preconceptions I had about anarchy was a common and
popular association or “package deal” of anarchy with chaos, disorder
and destruction, which put anarchy in conflict with my explicit moral
code. When I recently read Butler Shaffer’s excellent article What is Anarchy? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html
), I encountered a proper definition and a study of the etymology of
the word, and I realized that--like the words “atheist” and “selfish”—”anarchy” has been badly maligned. "Archos" is Greek/Latin for ruler, tyrant, or dictator. “Anarkhos“,
"an-archos" or "Anarchy" means "without a ruler". Civic life
experienced without a tyrant or dictator telling us what to do is
hardly an undesirable state of affairs.
Anarchy is not
chaos, in spite of what some dictionaries claim. (They are also guilty
of confusing a Republic with a Democracy). As Michael T. Bradshaw said
in Home of the Slave? (The Libertarian Enterprise #362) “…chaos
is not anarchy. The two are polar opposites. To the extent that you
have one, you have less of the other. Chaos is disorder; such as we see
in governmental interference in the market economy, pogrom, genocide
and wars between states. Anarchy is the absence of a king or political
state. A free market, guided by the invisible hand of price feedback is
the classic example of anarchy. Most, by far, human interaction is
an-archic. Examples are families, friends and shopping—as none of these
require governmental intervention. That is why anarchy is peaceful and
orderly, with a rather smooth progression of increasing prosperity."
Even
driving on the streets and highways can be considered anarchic. Traffic
violations sometimes make sensational news, but the vast, overwhelming
majority of driving activity is governed by (mostly) reasonable rules
and completely unsupervised by rulers of any kind. Indeed, attempts to
enforce unreasonable driving rules are often viewed with distain and
disobedience. Shaffer’s article contains well-considered detail and
examples regarding driving behaviors as does this entire article by
Brad Edmonds titled Traffic Cops Are Traffic Hazards. ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds144.html --sorry about the link. I see that Edmonds has not restored his material yet. Makes a good case for keeping copies).
As Butler Shaffer points out: “If
we dealt with our colleagues at work in the same coercive and
threatening manner by which the state insists on dealing with us, our
employment would be immediately terminated. We would soon be without
friends were we to demand that they adhere to specific behavioral
standards that we had mandated for their lives. Should you come over to
our home for a visit, you will not be taxed, searched, required to show
a passport or driver’s license, fined, jailed, threatened, handcuffed,
or prohibited from leaving. I suspect that your relationships with your
friends are conducted on the same basis of mutual respect. In short,
virtually all of our dealings with friends and strangers alike are
grounded in practices that are peaceful, voluntary, and devoid of
coercion.”
NEVER FORGET is available at http://www.cafepress.com/ArtemisZuna