From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"> wrote   
   > IF oyu're referring to anarchy as a political philosophy, I thought that   
   > it   
   > just means "no governemnt", which is not the same thing as a rejection of   
   > either social connections or social responsibility.  IIRC, anarchy sees   
   > ethical behavior as being based upon conscience, whereas governemnts use   
   > laws to define and enforce certian behaviors.   
      
   You thought correctly, and thats also the dictionary definition.   
   Most of the time when you see the word used today it is in place of the word   
   chaos, and of course there is no association between the two.   
   anarchy = the absence of gov't.   
   Awhile back Pete Gruhn pointed out that that is exactly how most people   
   conduct their lives everyday, as if gov't doesn't exist.   
   And thats true.   
   Do you not drive 100 mph down a busy street because its against the law, or   
   do you not do that because it could be harmful to self and others?   
   Do you not rip people off because you don't want the ripee to come back and   
   kill you?   
   And on and on.   
   The otherside is, there are some people running around out there lacking in   
   conscience but they are in a very small minority.   
   Their numbers seem larger than they are because they are facilitated by the   
   very entity employed to prevent them.   
   If all crime ceased today, there would be no need for a justice system and   
   therefore millions of people would have to go out and get honest jobs, so   
   its in the best interest of those that work within the justice system to   
   keep criminal activity alive and well.   
   Many people today also associate illegality with immorality and there is no   
   such association.   
   The more laws enacted, the more criminals will exist, and immorality has   
   nothing to do with it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)