Saturday, August 1, 2009

Sometimes, I Think.

That libertarians exist in power only so that anarchists and authoritarians can peacefully bludgeon each other to death.

Governance is a pitiful excuse for ordered chaos.
Yes, I know that's an oxymoron.

No wonder.

5 comments:

Srivatsan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Srivatsan said...

I can't imagine how a government can satisfy all minds,with each and every mind thinking differently in certain co-ordinate of space-time??

And people don't generally fall under categories,only a part of their thoughts are synchronous or they synchronize to get accepted!That's how anarchist or libertarians arise!

Human life is itself an oxymoron.'We live for dying' or 'die to define our life'!

I think I'm spamming your comment space!:)

Sherry Wasandi said...

From where I look at it, the question of satisfaction is not even a consideration. An "able" government is now defined as one that sits on its ass and doesn't interfere with the flow of things. See anything wrong with that idea? I do. Hence.

Existence isn't measured in terms of its end, is it? Do you define a person's life by how long they lived? You don't measure words by the blank spaces between them. We do not live to die. We live to make things happen the way we want them to happen.

:) Go ahead.

Srivatsan said...

"We live to make things happen the way we want them to happen. "

If these "things" are same for all in a country or state,then all might work for that to happen.Again,here,no one has same "things" to happen.One wants a poor-free society while one wants an increase in commodity price,while one wants pollution-free society and another wants a car.But one's achievement here is another's defeat.Take this on a larger scale.

Everyone wants their "things" to work out and that makes the problem you have discussed!

I'm not contradicting you,but I'm interested in discussing on this non-linear dynamics of human being!:)

Sherry Wasandi said...

When I speak of "making things happen" I mean that on an individual's level. You're underestimating the power of a person to affect his immediate surroundings. If his goal is to only have his own circumstances in a certain way, there is no reason why he can't make that happen.

I'm not talking about changing society as a whole, to a person's preferences. I'm talking about something called rational selfishness, wherein an individual's only botheration is his own life, not that of someone else.

I understand that that is not a contradiction. It is a point very well put by you, in fact. Only, we are both speaking in slightly different perspectives.

And since I speak of life in such isolated, singular terms, I mention the paradox of governance. In such a scenario, the only one that can survive is one that lets people do whatever they want to, as long as it is not outright illegal. And even that definition is stretched beyond limits. So there.