The difference between a LEADER and a RULER...
I am an Anarchist. For those of you that may not know that does not actually mean I am into chaos and violence. That does not mean I am a radical activist. In fact, those things do not fit the term Anarchy at all. Anarchy is derived from the word Archon and Archy which means RULER. An-archy simple means NO RULERS.
Source: Before It's News
Some people know this and will remember it and might say NO LEADERS. Yet that is inaccurate. There is a distinct difference between a LEADER and a RULER.
Leaders can arise naturally in any group. It is usually the person that people CHOOSE to follow in that given instance. The idea of a leader can be very limited in scope as well. You can lead me to the nearest gas station if my car breaks down. You can LEAD BY EXAMPLE by yourself having the behaviors you would like the rest of us to have. If we agree those are good behaviors we can CHOOSE to try to emulate them and act that same way. The key is CHOICE. We can also choose to change our mind and go a different direction at anytime.
Leaders of that type are natural and occur without needing any special election and rules. That word RULES is important as well. That leads us into the concept of a RULER.
A Ruler is someone who can tell you what you must do. They dictate the rules and you have no choice but to follow them. You can attempt to not follow the rules, and the group of people they have convinced that they should have the right to order other people around will come at you in force and imprison, harm, or kill you.
Non Aggression Principle
Another tenant of the anarchistic movements in the world today is the concept of the Non-aggression principle. Anarchists today will not initiate force. They will defend themselves and what they consider their property. They will not initiate aggression. So when you hear the term anarchist applied to a radical, extremist, or activist that did some aggressive action they are in fact NOT anarchists at all. That is just the media choosing to use that label.
If you ask most people what the word "Anarchy" means the most common answer you are likely to get is Chaos, or disorder. Yet that is not what it means.
There are many cases where words are used by media, politicians, and religious zealots in ways that they don't actually mean.
It gives great emotional impact towards attempting to steer people away from such kinds of thought.
It is in any government's interest to make ANARCHY a bad word. The very concept of anarchy is anathema to what they represent and their power structure.
Steem On!
The nature of Anarchism make Anarchism hard to explain. Different Anarchists can have slightly different beliefs in what Anarchism is. Since no one can force an Anarchist to agree on what Anarchism is, they are free to choose to have different beliefs.
I like your explanation of "No-Rulers".
This is true. :)
The word "Anarchy" has immediate negative connotations. Just the sight of Anarchist literature in my home makes some people question my sanity. For practical reasons I do not consider myself an Anarchist, but I believe we can all benefit from adopting some Anarchist stances.
btw - I selected your piece for today's #philosophy-review. Keep up the great posts! https://steemit.com/philosophy/@aaanderson/the-philosophy-review-12-01-2016
And when I see a group of people with an "Anarchist" sign and vandalizing businesses, is it the media that invent it? I saw it with my eyes!
And what about leaders who become rulers?
No that is people using the sign though they don't know what the sign means. They've seen a punk rock T-shirt or a logo and they associate it with rebellion. They actually buy into the hijacked meaning of the word.
Leaders who become rulers and push the rules upon others are not supported by anarchists.
I can go put an upside down cross on a building. That doesn't mean I am a Satanist. I can go put a right side cross on a building and that doesn't mean I am a Christian.
I can go put a Japanese Zero symbol on a building. That does not mean I am Japanese.
I can go put a hammer and sickle on a building. That does not mean I am communist.
I can go put a Swastika on a building. That does not mean I am a Nazi. That symbol (in fact most of these) existed FAR before the thing which gives them negative connotations.
However, IF I did use those symbols there is also the chance that I do consider myself those things.
As a youth who once drew the Anarchy symbol on notebooks and such beside my heavy metal band logos in the 1980s I can tell you I had no CLUE what Anarchy really meant. I just knew the song Anarchy in the UK and that it was considered rebellious to do it.
I didn't consider it rebelling against the government at the time. It was being young and rebelling at society, and more because it was a fad and I was young and didn't know nearly as much as I thought I did.
:)
EDIT: Basically... the symbol does not make the person. Their ideologies and actions do. A person can draw or make any symbol they want. That does not truly represent what their ideologies and actions are.
EDIT 2: The moment a leader becomes a ruler and people choose to obey their rules that is no longer anarchy and those people are no longer anarchists. If there are rulers then it is not anarchy.
Many people who oppose the established order define themselves as anarchism without understanding its definition. So these opponents give a bad image of the "anarchist" philosophy, not just the media.
Sixty years ago, and still today, I was a contradiction of the established system. We have worked to improve it and not change it ... but we are never satisfied with the changes. Regardless of the structures, I think that men will remain humans.
I cannot disagree with you there. You are likely correct.
Men/Women will also use labels however they damn well please too. :)
Hey, @dwinblood,
This is an excellent, clear, enlightening summary. Nice work. Thank You.
Following you now.
Thank you. Appreciate the follow.
So many words are hijacked like this, this is one of the more tragic examples.
I like your distinction here. I often feel a little put off by the word leader, but it's more about the way people use the term. Leadership can be fluid in nature, naturally given to those who best personify the values of the community at any given moment.
Look forward to browsing your posts.
Thanks I enjoy a little necromancy when someone breathes new life into my old posts. I've talked about Leader vs ruler a few times. Leader like you said is dynamic and voluntary, or at least it should be. It can begin and end whenever you choose. A ruler is involuntary and can influence you by force.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal