Anarchy is anarchy!
I actually did have a brilliant post, good-to-go, about judiciary and how, essentially, law is arbitrary by definition - but then IE decided that I didn’t, in fact, deserve to blog. I find it hard to be too aggravated by this, though, as yesterday I recieved an offer to read English Literature at Corpus Christi college, Oxford; understandably, I’m wearing too much of a grin about the place to be significantly affected by a technological hitch.
I’ll part with some ironic words:
"The anarchist is the enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his is a deeper degree of criminality than any other." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1901.
I wholeheartedly agree. An anarchist is the enemy of humanity and mankind, as those imply organised collectives that, in some way, gain some validation by merit of them being collective; an anarchist views humanity as a huge group of separate individuals, and mankind as a similar collection of individual men. To an anarchist, there is no banner behind which people can unify, as we all possess wholly different politics, philosophies and desires; when this is attempted, individuals are forced to yield to a majority, or even a minority (as with government) viewpoint. It is a dangerous fallacy to act on the presumption that there is a ’mankind’ so much as there is a ‘lot of men’ - so, yes, anarchism is the enemy of humanity and mankind.
As for ’criminality’, well, yes, but I find it very difficult to be insulted by a word that was effectively contrived to explain an already contrived idea. If I reject concepts of ‘legal’ and ’illegal’ as pointless and arbitrary, in the manner that I have described on this blog, then it follows that a word with the function of describing one who does just this is a little feckless. Law is an extension of authority, which in turn is something anarchy opposes viciously; therefore, when Teddy refers to anarchists as ‘criminal’ he is essentially arguing that anarchists are anarchists.
Never mind, eh?
