New Law is NOT "Anarchy"

Susan, in your rightful indignation about Congress passing a bill (which Bush has now signed) granting immunity to telecommunications companies against any legal prosecution for helping US government agencies to spy on citizens suspected of participating in terrorism, you have totally misused the word "anarchy". Etymologically, "anarchy" is "no archy" - the absence of rule/rulers (by one/some over others). What you appear to decry is the manipulation and even non-adherence to laws passed by previous federal legislatures. This latest additional distortion of the US Constitution (an originally reasonable societal ordering process for its time of creation), however, should not be a surprise in an increasingly heavily legislated and regulated society. This is so even when the majority of those who cast votes continue to do so with the expectation that all will be well if only the "bad guys" are replaced with "good guys".

For those interested, I wrote more on the meaning of "anarchy" in an article in March 2008, prompted by the word's misuse in another OEN article.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments) on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 1:28:18 PM
 

Definition of anarchy

 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy Main Entry: an·ar·chy   Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- Date: 1539

by Susan Allen (18 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 12:30:07 AM
 

Understanding of Anarchy + Orderly Society w/o Rulers

"According to the etymology of the word, anarchy would mean absence of all government, of all political authority;" - correct, but this does not necessarily equate to evil, disorder or chaos. The fact that virtually all societies now and in the past have been ruled by some individual or group, does not logically imply that such rule is a necessity to maintain order. The nature of human beings does not automatically lead to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Society, just like any other natural system can be naturally self-regulating by means of interactions between its members, if only humans seeks to discover and are allowed to implement the methods by which such self-regulation can be effective, rather than continuing to embrace social systems that need to be constantly held in an unnatural (and very unoptimal) state of balance by the operations of their rulers and other influencers.

"the mind may conceive an extreme limit which can scarcely be ever attained in reality. Therefore history does not present, perhaps, a single complete example of anarchy, in which each individual was found in full and entire independence of all external authority."

If one were looking only to history for examples of what might be possible, the Declaration of Independence would never have been written and the United States of America would never have been formed with the acceptance of the Constitution by representatives of residents. For thousands of years prior to the 17th century writings of John Locke - and even for much of time and most locations into the late 19th century, having a leader determined by his own physical strength, might of his army and/or divine authority of the self-proclaimed representatives of a supreme being was considered the normal course of a society. Action to promote social ordering methods that were contrary to those of the current society was considered to be treason against the ruler and subject to fines, injury or death. (This is still the case in many parts of the world today.) So for this reason alone, it is illogical to conclude that a potentially successful societal ordering system must be one that has been used in the past. I contend that one must og back to first principles and examine the essential aspects of the nature of human beings - not simply "conceive an extreme limit" a priori of some desire outcome for a societal form. This is what Paul Wakfer has done in his foundational essay, "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human Interaction", a studied reading of which I strongly recommend to those seriously interested in a better society than what currently exists.

Far more understanding of human nature and neurophysiology than was available in 1881 to the author of the item to which you link (and provide the beginning paragraph in your comment above), Susan, has been possible for the past dozen or more years, and this is an essential part of the referred to essay by Paul Wakfer. Depending solely on the writings of more than 100 years ago on subjects that require an understanding of human neurophysiology and psychology greatly limits one's understanding and acceptance of what is truly possible for human beings, to what was known then. These subjects of human neurophysiology and psychology are still being strongly explored and new studies released every week, some of which contradict older accepted ideas of only 30 years ago. The point is, that an optimum society for human beings is not to be found by limiting one's self to a study of what has existed in the past (though a read of the last paragraph in your referred link shows that the author does understand the real meaning and possibility of anarchy -

"the an-archy of M. Proudhon is nothing but self-government carried to its extremist limits, and the last step in the progress of human reason...Politics, as hitherto understood, would have no further raison d'être, and an-archy, that is to say, the disappearance of all political authority, would be the result of this transformation of human society in which all questions to be solved would have a purely economic character. Long ago J. B. Say advanced the opinion that the functions of the state should be reduced to the performance of police duties. If so reduced there would be but one step needed to reach the an-archy of M. Proudhon—suppression of the police power").

Rather, an optimum society for human beings should based be on the nature of human beings as the scientific study of humans reveals their general nature to be. And please remember that humans are individuals, with an enormous variation in tastes as well as physical and mental characteristics and capabilities.

BTW, thank you for the link. It is a very good presentation of the vaious views of anarchy extant at the end of the 19th century.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments) on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 1:14:15 PM
 

Heavily Regulated Society?

You said,"

"This latest additional distortion of the US Constitution (an originally reasonable societal ordering process for its time of creation), however, should not be a surprise in an increasingly heavily legislated and regulated society."

Interesting phraseology there.  Do you mean you accept this, heavily legislated and regulated society? 

by Susan Allen (18 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 23 comments) on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 12:35:42 AM
 

Puzzling Question...

Your question as to whether I "accept this, heavily legislated and regulated society" is a puzzle.... I wrote at the very beginning: "in your **rightful indignation** about Congress passing a bill (which Bush has now signed) granting immunity to telecommunications companies against any legal prosecution for helping US government agencies to spy on citizens suspected of participating in terrorism," (emphasis added). Susan, I would never have included "rightful indignation" if I accepted the enactment of " this latest additional distortion of the US Constitution (an originally reasonable societal ordering process for its time of creation)". Nor would I have used the phrase "latest additional distortion" in further describing it.

In addition, anyone reading other things I have written at OEN and at the Self-Sovereign Individual Project (listed in my sig lines) would quickly come to the conclusion that I and husband Paul Wakfer do not accept - in the sense of condone and give approval to - this "legislated and regulated society".

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 124 comments) on Sunday, July 13, 2008 at 1:34:05 PM