>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>
Thanks for your essay on anarchy- I found it interesting. I do not consider
myself an anarchist and should probably know more about it before commenting
on it. I was actually working from the definition of anarchy "absence of
cohesive principle, such as a common purpose". I know a definition was
probably a little too simplistic but I don't think a definition or that essay
can encompass all anarchists. If some anarchists want to cling to a single
theory of what anarchy is I think they are really missing the point of what it
is really about. I would probably want to know the individual's perception of
anarchy before arguing whether that belief is consistent with MOQ.
So I may have been oversimplifying anarchy when I made it analogous to chaos.
To me it wants dismantle certains systems that are restraining chaos. I think
it is impressive to be able to live in uncertainty rather than cling to any
theory even if it is about anarchy.
Didn't Nietsche say " out of chaos comes order"
Roger, Erin and others.
>
>As many times earlier, you guys have a very different understanding of
>political ideas than me.
>
>Roger wrote:
>>PS -- How can a fan of the MOQ be an anarchist? this makes no sense and
>>undermines the top two levels (lowering your proposed solution below even
>the
>>social)
>
>I can understand why a fan of the MoQ can be an anarchist, but I do not
>agree in anarchism. I started out not able to understand why a fan of MoQ
>could be a Libertarian, but very many members of this list do not agree with
>me. In many ways I would say that Libertarianism and Anarchism only differ
>in the way they define "Freedom". In libertarianism freedom to own property
>are very important, but in anarchism freedom of property ownership are very
>important.
>
>Roberson (1996) in his PhD thesis on Anarchism states that "Capitalist
>anarchism, like statist libertarianism, is based upon an ideal of negative
>liberty. Right-wing anarchists believe that the functions currently in the
>hands of the state could be adequately (or better) provided by private
>businesses. This would require the parceling-out of some of the authority
>currently in the hands of the state to the businesses which would provide
>public services. Some, but not all: although in the right-wing anarchist
>picture the state would be entirely dismantled, not all of its authority
>would be placed into the hands of private organizations. Since right-wing
>anarchists are dedicated to the libertarian ideal of a society based
>entirely on voluntary relations, some of the state's powers, such as eminent
>domain or military conscription, would be done away with entirely."
>
>I still not agree with anarchism or libertarianism, but according to
>Robertson the story is not as easy as anarchism equals chaos.
>
>Thanks for reading,
>Gerhard
>
>PS:
>For those that do not agree on the basis that they don't know what Anarchism
>is, I have included a chapter from Roberson (1996).
>
>What is anarchism?
>
>Anarchism is often briefly glossed as the doctrine that opposes state power
>and authority. But this brief definition only hints at the rich content of
>the theory. The classical anarchists shared common ground with a
>surprisingly wide variety of political views. Like classical liberals, they
>viewed the state as frequently burdensome and potentially oppressive of
>individual rights. Like socialists, including Marx, they opposed the
>exploitative capitalist economic system. And like some conservatives, they
>considered small local communities the ideal locus of social and political
>life. These apparently eclectic views have led some commentators to regard
>anarchism as an ad hoc mingling of fashionable positions; or, worse, an
>inherently confused jumble because of the internal tensions between the
>incompatible goals of liberalism, socialism, and conservatism.
>As if this were not enough to render it undesirable as a political
>philosophy, anarchism also seemed fixated on an impractical and dangerous
>goal, the abolition of the state. Indeed, the attack upon state authority
>has generally been understood to be the single defining characteristic of
>anarchism, and the one from which most of its other positions could be
>derived. This critique of the state itself relied upon implausible
>assumptions about the malleability of human nature and people's ability to
>interact socially and politically with only reason to guide them.
>If this popularly accepted view is correct, anarchism should be doomed by
>its impracticality and internal inconsistencies to, at best, an existence on
>the margins of social and political life. It would not be worth serious
>consideration alongside the mainstream political philosophies. But this view
>is inaccurate. As I will demonstrate in the following chapters, anarchism is
>grounded in a distinctive and original view of the values of society and
>individuality, and of the good life for humanity. Its social and political
>recommendations have an internally compelling rationale, and are not merely
>ideas appropriated from different political theories. Furthermore, it is not
>inherently utopian; and its most important goals may be achievable within
>the confines of the state.
>
>
>References
>
>Roberson, Christopher Joseph " Godwin Revisited: Anarchism for the Real
>World", A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
>for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Michigan, 1996
>This thesis can be found at http://www.enteract.com/~robchr/diss/index.html
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST