ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
ORIGINAL: tinner1
cy rumley,
If not for anarchy, you would be subjects of a monarchy in his/her colony. Careful what you wish for............
I would like to clarify something for you, I am for revolution but NOT anarchy...
According to Websters online:
Anarchy... ''a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority'' .
Revolution....''a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed''
''Revolutionists'' are what made the US what it is today. I believe in questioning the government, and sometimes changing it...BUT ''anarchy'' is a lawless society. Biggest man, biggest gun rules. I'm not for that...People need some sort of government in order to be civilized, otherwise ''anarchy'' will rule...
Tinner-
There is some ambiguity in the term, so you have to consider the usage. In context, it appeared to have been applied to 3 out of 4 of the respondents to the poll. I think this meaning (from Wiki) fits better: ''Most often, the term ''anarchy'' describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.'' I doubt that the folks referred to are intent on revolution, but are simply questioning authority and saying they may chose to not recognize it. Maybe my use of a particular example was inappropriate, as in that instance anarchy led to revolution.
I guess anarchist can make up their own definitions.
