This is a post by Mr. Ohh of ‘Mr. Ohh!’s Sideways View‘, who kindly agreed to accept my invitation to contribute to ‘Wibble’ as a result of my post ‘creating content collaboratively‘. (Come, join in the fun!)
Have you any idea what the definition of ‘anarchy’ is? There are a couple, but the primary one is the lack of government. Period, end of statement. Therefore, my house can be called anarchy when my wife and I leave. No, bikers don’t show up and start running guns in my living room, and nobody sets fire to the sofa, although I wish someone would. That one my wife picked out is ugly. But this is beside the point. There is no rule in the house and therefore it is, by definition, anarchy.
And now I’m going to tick off a bazillion Conservatives out there. Anarchy is very closely related to the pure form of communism. Think about it. Communism is a group all working together toward a common good. Once the good is established, there is no need for a government and therefore anarchy. This is actually in the Communist Manifesto by Marx himself. That’s Karl, not Groucho. Can’t you just see that in the late nineteen sixties? Everyone sitting around the campfire after the day’s work on the farm is done, passing the pipe around, when Strawberry says to OakTree, “Yep, we never had it so good before we started all this anarchy.”
Remember, we are not talking about socialism. Socialism requires a very, very large government to take care of everybody. In fact, this is the biggest problem with socialism. One guy stands up on a stump and proclaims if he’s the government he’ll take care of everyone. They have a revolution and he is the government, then everybody sits back and does nothing because that guy said he was going to take care of everything. Dumb move, dude.
That’s why what we call the ‘free world’ went to what they call a ‘democracy’. It’s not one, but they call it that. Back to the dictionary. Democracy is defined as ‘a system of governance where the majority rules’. Notice that word ‘majority’. Majority is not defined as one person who will be offended if something happens. This being the case, why are the world’s great democracies basing all their laws on the one person who might be offended if that law goes into effect? I just want a hot cup of coffee, but I can never have one again because one idiot burned themself. Or I must sign six waivers to buy a power saw stating I shouldn’t try to stop the blade with my hand.
Another interesting thing about the majority ruling is we have turned ‘government’ into a game show with two teams who no longer care about the good of the country as long as their team wins. I bet the ancient Greeks never thought of that when they came up with the definition. This is just the easy ones. Some places have seven, eight, or even ten teams vying to win the democracy game. They have to negotiate. There’s another word that has lost its meaning to time. It means ‘to agree and make concessions so that everyone ends up with an acceptable solution’, not ‘lie and double deal so you can get more power to eventually make your team the single winner’. I’ve checked several dictionaries, and not one has that definition.
The good thing about all this is that because of all the team warfare, very little damage gets done; and all the little people can go on with their lives knowing that nothing will ever change. If you want things to change, you need a dictator. Everybody is going to tell me how bad that is, but think about it. While all the democracies are arguing about things, the dictators say they want something and BAM it happens. No committees or budgets; just get it done. Of course, after a few years they usually go power mad and start killing their enemies, but, hey, things happen.
Well, thanks for listening to my rambling but try to remember what you heard. If you wonder why things don’t make sense, it’s simply that people don’t know what to call things anymore. They’re using the wrong definitions.