Five more Plist-related 'finds' while not looking

[Richard Fiero]

Michael Bailey wrote:
>anarchy denotes no ruler,
>not necessarily that there are no laws.
>
>For one thing, there are physical laws that can't be ignored.
>
>More germane to a poly-sci discussion, many have said that
>there are, or ought to be, natural laws for human relations
>
>I think anarchist thinkers mostly started by
>responding to the fact that the existing ruling classes
>were flouting natural law.
>
> From there, a study of history and current events
>may lead to the notion that vesting a group with power
>inevitably leads to abuses.
>
>The only way to perceive that ruling classes abuse natural
>law is to believe in some kind of natural law...
>
>so, qed, and tautologically, anarchy doesn't mean no law -
>quite the contrary...right?
. . .
The elites rule by claiming natural law favors them by accidents of 
birth, race and wealth and so they embody natural law.  Marx was one 
to point out that our political economy is man made and so can be 
changed by man.