anarchy

[Mike Weaver]

Steven:
>I realize that I was being simplistic...but I honestly don't 
>understand your response.
>  How does a 'passing configuration' get 'set up on a rigid basis'?

The rigid basis is "no rules" - introduce one rule and its not 
anarchy anymore. (In practice that one rule is rapidly qualified and 
soon becomes a whole set of rules.) That is as rigid a basis as you 
can get. Because of this anarchist communities tend not to last long. 
There is the passing configuration.

>Also -- 'what should be' has no relation at all to 'what is'.  It 
>can't be pushed aside if it hasn't been born.  Anarchism is an idea 
>that's never been actualized.

The comment of a true idealist.
I suspect I'm, somewhat ignorantly, wandering onto a well trod 
philosophic track, but, as I see it, 'whats' that 'should be' are 
very much connected to 'what is' in that most of them are moral or 
ideological criticisms or negations of 'what is'.
   That's putting it generously - Lenny Bruce had a sharper view:
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is what is, and what should be 
is a fantasy, a terrible, terrible lie that someone gave the people 
long ago..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVaBfUMYhR8

Anarchism is one of the infinitude of ideas which have never been 
actualised and, like many of them, may never be actualised because it 
falls outside the realm of possibility. Our imaginations can come up 
with all sorts of ideas, but lasting realisation requires they have 
some stability within the possibilities of human interaction or 
material existence.

Mike