Wade T. Smith wrote:
> an-ar-chy n.
> 1. Absence of any form of political authority.
Does this necessarily mean that there is no government. IMO, it does,
but I suppose it's feasable to disagree.
> 2. Political disorder and confusion.
This could imply that there is a government, but it is ineffectual.
> 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or
> purpose.
I would say that this also implies a lack of society and government.
> Noun: A lack of civil order or peace.
That's what would bother me most about anarchy
> disorder,
And that. I like things to be nicely organised. It's just the way I am :)
> lawlessness,
The whole point of anarchy, IMO
> misrule.
Interesting! I would consider anarchy to be lack of rule, and thus there
would be no place for misrule. Any thoughts on this?
> *********************************************************
> Wade T. Smith |'There ain't nothin' you
> morbius@us1.channel1.com | shouldn't do to a dog.'
^^^
Is this correct? If so, I didn't
realise that you were into that kind
of thing ;)
Drakir
-------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
-------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
-------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 23 2002 - 04:00:35 MDT