[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01439: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

From: Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:34:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Anarchism and Direct Democracy

Antonio Rossin wrote:

Dear Mirek,

you did not answer my post.
Let me quote what you did not of it:

...

Well now, I have nothing against some inhabitants of the world who
decide to adopt a different, personal meaning for words that have a
shared meaning by the remaining majority of the inhabitants the
world. But -- if they do so -- they are a sect, not a member of
democracy.
BTW, I go back to my shareable OAL dictionary, and read under the
item "sect":
- Sect = group of people who share (esp religious) beliefs or
opinions which differ from those of most people.


Dear Antonio,
i cannot understand your refusal to accept anarchy as something that has
ruled mankind's social behaviour for millenia and has been replaced by
democracy just in recent times, after the creation of the elites
(elites, mind you, allow top-down and bottom-up, impossible in anarchy).
About sect: your definition perfectly fits neurologists (among others),
seems to me. Are you a member of that sect? Does it feel wrong, weird or
else? How can a member of that sect actively partecipate to DD, if i may
ask? Why can neurologists partecipate but anarchists cannot?

Regards

Giorgio

PS my compliments to Mirek for the clarity of his post and position.
Noble and democratic are postive attributs forged in the workshops of
nobles and democrats (guess why?) while anarchy (maybe) represents a
direct threat to those workshops drop forging words and minds.



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]