Anarchy

This is a post that has evolved from a couple things: the creation of a new social network that is pledged to let the hot air out of Hot Air Bloggers and a cacophony of resistant outcry and detestation over Blogger Rights, Community Rights and the individual's right to call a spade a spade or, as the Oxford English Dictionary records a more forceful variant, "to call a spade a bloody shovel".

Karla, Fruitcake,
It appears the "Nice" (is that a good word for conformity?) Guys are winning (have won?) Skirmish 1.

Be not discouraged, free speech still lives in spite of the fact that Pied Pipers walk among us.

Be that as it may, there was an early interesting comment in the Sacred Cows string; it said:
Jason has both the editorial right and responsibility to decide what is acceptable on the site. If there are sacred cows ,emphasis, "if" ..they should be ignored, impact denied and left to fade into obscurity. I shall defer to both Jason's right and responsibility. If any of our comments are construed to be over the top he will have the same right to remove them. Anarchy in any arena is unacceptable.

I invited a discussion on anarchy in the string but, alas, it never took root other than the symbol I chose to place on the invite of a pitchfork and torch got picked up in several references as a symbol of mob mentality. I don't happen to agree with the statement that anarchy is "never" acceptable and the recent debate (if you could call some of the responses in those strings (here's one of the strings) that emerged "debate") just keeps on begging the question.

Anarchy is referred to by Wikipedia as:
"No rulership or enforced authority." [1]
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]
"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[4]
A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
Independent from rule or authority.

There's a pretty rich discussion offered by Wikipedia and I encourage you to follow the Anarchy link above to read it but I'm going to take just one (the first) of the references above to begin this conversation. Hopefully others will choose some of the statements from above and offer them for discussion.

"No rulership or enforced authority." [1] To me, this means that there is no ONE PERSON over all. In other words, in the conflagration we've just passed through, none of the participants wields authority, or power, over another. Social networking is evolving and one of these last painful episodes is just one in another of the many birthing pains we have come to expect and can expect more of in the future. These “pains” deliver to us an unmatched nursery of ideas that we all learn from.

All we really have in this delivery format are our skills as communicators. Part of our communication skills involve our skills as writers – a worthy commitment to words that each and every one of us benefits each the other by. The pen being mightier than the sword, and all that, is very true. What some wish to call undue influence seems to fall under this aegis. So what that one person writes better than another? Is that really an unfair advantage in this little world we inhabit? Has anyone considered that the rest of us stand to better our own (writing/communication) skills by the example of others? Is it such a sin to be able to present an idea clothed in words? Is it such a threat for one person to be able to insert themselves into words that influence? Is this talent to be construed/earmarked/(mis)interpreted as something unholy?

I beg to differ.

I have no disagreement that a forum moderator has “both the editorial right and responsibility to decide what is acceptable on the site.” But I also believe strongly that at a certain point a “forum” takes on a life of its own and becomes the property (in a sense) of the participants that have breathed life and soul into it. Anyone who has “created” an online community where people enjoy each other is going to experience this phenomenon at some point. (Steve Levy pointed this out to me a long time ago and went a long ways towards reducing the proprietorship emotions I was beginning to feel toward my “communities”.)

Creating a community takes a tremendous amount of work – work that most people are just not willing to do. Being an active part of that community also takes a tremendous amount of work – again, work that most people are just not willing to do. Does this mean that a whole lot of hard work translates to influence? Maybe. Is that really a new lesson? I don’t think so. Does it mean that influence is meant to be used as a blunt instrument? Absolutely not and, in my opinion, is where these communities go haywire.

But, when influence (the ability to communicate effectively) is used as a gadfly, as Animal suggested, that makes people question, to make people think, that allows people to learn, and that “influence” is attacked and called something else, called something ugly, it’s just plain wrong.

That all being said, I’m not ‘zakly sure I made the point I set out to make that anarchy is a state where there is “no rulership or enforced authority” and that anarchic states (sometimes, many times) are a good thing. If I didn't I apologize for the time you just spent reading this rant but please know, I tried. And that’s the thing that’s just plain right.