|
posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:39PM
It tended to refer to oligarchies and monarchies, which a government is not exclusive to.
|
posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 8:22PM
It never only tended to these forms of government. It always tended toward all forms of government. Government, by the way, equals "legalized" coercion. It's political science 101.
|
|
posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:42PM
A government most definitely is.
|
posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:45PM
Fine, it can be similar to it in description, but *is* not exclusively.
|
posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:46PM
Is exactly precisely that. ARCHOS=government.
|
|
|
|
posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:39PM
"an" meaning without or not
|
posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:42PM
Ok, so if anarchy is directly from "an archos", AND we're defining the term based solely on its linguistic roots, then "anarchy" can mean:
1. without monarchy
2. without oligarchy
3. no monarchy
4. no oligarchy
But a government is neither a monarchy nor is it an oligarchy ...
hmmm...
|
posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:46PM
You'll notice the roots of the words monARCHY and oligARCHY. A MON-ARCHY is one-man-ruler. An OLI-GARCHY is a group-of-rulers Common sense /should/ lead you to the definition of anARCHY ... NO RULERS.
|
|
|
|
