mf - story #4412 - It tended to refer t

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.

Link

posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:42PM

A government most definitely is.

Link

posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:45PM

Fine, it can be similar to it in description, but *is* not exclusively.

Link

posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:46PM

Is exactly precisely that. ARCHOS=government.

Link

posted by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:47PM

And there are many flavours of ARCHOSes. Mons. Olis. Democratic. Etc.

Link

posted by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 6:39PM

"an" meaning without or not

Link

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...

Link

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.

Link

posted by Driusan on August 29th, 2008 at 6:57PM

Ancient Greek morphology is "common sense"?

Link

Yes. I can't think of any conf by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 6:59PM.

It's not confusing. My point by Nylorac on August 29th, 2008 at 7:58PM.

Not really. Even with the wier by dennisn on August 29th, 2008 at 8:15PM.