Jerusalem my Opinion

given the recent political history of Jerusalem, it is, perhaps, understandable why one may wish to see a system of government that does not have a system or a government... We live in- or come from- countries where the governments, however we may dislike them, do not oppress us and do not cause us direct harm (mostly). If they did, perhaps we, too, would want to be rid of them?

I think as Henry David Thoreau said that the less government the better, however Marxism and Communism and all forms of government except for Democracy has proven that people will abuse power. The idea that power corrupts, however I do appreciate your view, however the word Anarchy is about a person wanting power, they want the power to destroy power. This is the same as when the music of the group "The Who" said,"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."Anarchy is a choice to hate, hurt, and kill, it about Chaos, not my world.

No disrespect man, but be careful with the rampant generalizations. There are peaceful flavors of anarchy. "Anarchy is about hating and killing" is an intellectually lazy statement right up there with "They hate our freedoms". Since you seem to be fond of Wiki lately, here's some clarification :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnarchyNote particularly meaning #4 on that page.I agree that anarchy is an unworkable solution given the current state of mankind - it would take some serious mental and emotional evolution for people to get to where they could self-manage at a level to make widespread anarchy workable. But the entire anarchist movement isn't just about "hating and killing". Knee-jerk statements like this are irresponsible. Many anarchists don't want the "power to destroy power", they just want to manage their own lives without interference. Oh, and there's been plenty of power abuse under democratic systems. We can start with Nixon and go from there. I enjoy your blog man but the way you sometimes demonize people with the sweeping ill-informed generalizations and put up these straw-man arguments just pushes my buttons. You're intelligent enough to do better than this.

To the last post,Anonymous said...I enjoy generalizations, this is like the generalizations that you are with us or against us by President Bush, this pushed peoples buttons. A biblical method that is meant to reveal your intentions.I see any use of this word intolerable by any loving person.Civil Disobedience of Henry David Thorea and part of the Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King methods is better.I do not believe you accept you are not perfect, you believe in an idealist world that cannot exist, therefore you are the powerless rabble who is and always will be anonymous.I see this as brain clutter, if you wish to use this word every around me than I will walk away, it has both old and everyday uses, it is not a word that can just be said to the crowd of people without them trying to kill, or think they have license to kill.I am in Palestine, there is many here that think these suicide monsters are martyrs, the just part is they are dead afterwards.

Your view of democracy is considerably higher than mine, as is your view of Mr.Bush. I do not think it is possible to look at people like Mr. Bush and Mr.Blair and say that democratically elected peoples will not abuse power. I do not think they are evil men, but I do think they act outside of the powers they hold, and whether the consequences be good or bad, this is still not to justify the means; at least not in my approach to ethics.Lest you disagree, and you likely will, let us not forget that Mr.Hitler was a democratically elected head of state... whatever our views on contemporary figures, there can be little doubt about this person's nature and abuse of power.Marxism is based around an idea: the idea that all people are equal. This in itself is a highly biblical idea. So is the idea of not exploiting people for material gain. Unfortunately, the USA and the UK do not follow these particular fascets of the teaching of our Lord.I will agree with you, that Communism hasn't worked how it should have. It has bred power-mad people, and has seen far more suffering on it's own shores than our own politics does. (Our politics is quite efficient at neatly keeping the suffering in other countries and out of sight). But this is not what Communism is meant to be. Communism is supposed to come from the people, as a revolution, and would represent the views and the wishes of the people (the ultimate democracy). In the USSR, however, this did not happen. Instead, Mr.Lennin decided that he would try and force Communism onto the people. He, the other Bolcheviks and later people like Mr.Stalin, had a plan to use Communism to their own end. We have never seen a proper Communist state on this planet, with the possible exception of Cuba (the poorness of which is largely due to the US and the rest of us refusing to trade with them and being, frankly, remarkably arrogant).Anarchism is not about breeding hate and hysteria, even if a few nuts use it to that end (such as those from the Black Bloc who smashed up Glenegles at the G8 summit recently). Anarchism proposes that centralised government (using the term "oligarchy") does not and cannot take into account the interests of all the people. It proposes instead a collective of local governments that serve a local area. Very similar, perhaps, to the system in the USA, with seperate judicial systems and laws and rules for your different states: taking into account the views of the people in those areas may be different from elsewhere in the US. It would work like this, but on a smaller scale still. In some systems these would be linked by a "federal" type system, in others not.It is rather absurd to make such vast generalisations about things, and I am at a loss to find exactly how this is a biblical principle. I think you will find that Christ was rather against polemics on the whole..