I'm not trying to start a heated debate and I won't participate if it gets to that point but I am wondering if there is a difference between the two or not and what is the difference: Fineline and Hardline.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Respect.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...well, it could be as simple as using lawful means to get ones point across or, in the case of anarchy, using ANY means "necessary."
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Freedom can exist within the bounds of the law.
Democracy is a system of law.
In anarchy, there is no law.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
err...adam, how is that anarchist?
Also, it's not true that in anarchy there is no law. Well, in a simplistic sense it is, but the meaning of anarchy is no leaders. There can be laws, in the sense of consensually held customs, but there would be no official body for drafting or enforcing these laws.
Speaking in terms of pure theory: In democracy, the majority has all freedom (that they can afford) except that which they choose not to have. The minority has no freedom except what the majority permits them to have.
In anarchy, every person is the guarantor of his own freedom and has whatever freedom his own power and the will of other people allow him.
---
As with any question of government, you have to consider the populations involved. Freedom is best balanced against the responsibility that the people are willing to take up.
Democracy serves to check the power of elite groups by moving the might by which questions are decided away from individual might and distributes it in a generally equitible fashion over the enfranchized populace. To have a positive democracy, you need a educated, mature, and engaged populace, a condition that has never existed. Most of what we call "democracies" incorporate many anti-democratic concepts, such as individual rights a la the Bill of Rights, and a balancing of powers and factions to check against mob rule.
Anarchy can be the worst or best form of government, depending on the population you're talking about. Highly (or perhaps only perfectly) mature, moral human beings would need no other government. In most other situations, anarchy is a recipe for disaster.
---
One often overlooked aspect of freedom and government is its transformative nature. I think governments should be evaluated not just on what they allow and what they prevent, but also the effects they have on the people within them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's contempt for laws and manipulating the system, not anarchy. There's still an enforced system of laws that they are bound by. The idea that the laws are there to control other people, not you, isn't anarchy. That's contemporary human nature.
Anarchy would involve them going over in a mass to beat the people up or something. Of course, democracy would have them voting in a mass to have the goverment beat them up.