From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
---|---|
Date: | Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:28:13 +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has ruled mankind's social behaviour for millenia and has been
replaced by democracy just in recent times, after the creation of the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.