QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Do your Revolutionary, Deviant and Rebel definitions not apply to an Anarchist too?
They do apply, albeit as modifiers describing methodology. Rebel Anarchism is the pursuit of Anarchy via Rebellion. Revolutionary Anarchism is the pursuit of Anarchy via Revolution. In both cases, the motivation and goal of the philosophy is still the abolition of all governance, not merely the modification or replacement of the existing government.
It would be difficult, although theoretically possible, to have a Reformist Anarchy. This would presumably involve a cultural movement which culminates in a mass voluntary surrendering of authority, similar to idealized Communism. This sound immensely implausible.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Social contract is an interesting term to use here. Are you suggesting Anarchism precludes social contracts?
Yes, I am. An acccepted or agreed upon set of behaviors and interactions
is what a government is. Social contract refers to the surrendering of individual freedoms to an authority in exchange for various protections. Anarchism is the ultimate expression of individual freedoms unfetered by authority. It is quite literally
the opposite of a social contract.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

The valuation of, and tendency to, organize such social contracts is present in the Anarchist thought I've encountered.
It would be my assumption that such political thought you've encountered is merely Anarchist in name only, and that you are being misled by their unfortunate choice of self-labels. Modern "Anarchism" has very little to do with the classical Anarchism. A similar problem arises with how people use "Communism" and "Socialism" in the modern age.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Actually, I'd argue that if you break a law, then saying you have respect for the whole legal system would be exaggerating.
That's like saying if you disagree with someone over a single issue or opinion, you have no respect for them as a person. Your thinking seems far too absolute, with no room for the nuance or shades of gray that exist in reality and in everyday human interactions. Perhaps this explains how you think breaking a law makes you an anarchist - you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Are you addressing something I've said here? If so, I don't think I suggested individuals don't make bad decisions, in fact, my first line posited otherwise.
Yes, I am. You stated that breaking a law makes one an Anarchist - id est, that one holds a philosophical opposition to government and rule of law. I propose that it instead merely makes one human and fallible.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Is this you talking about Anarchism? If so, this falls into the "smash the state" rhetoric, and equates Anarchy with a lack of social conscience or moral directive. That would describe a sociopath, or to be less hyperbolic, an arsehole.
No, it is not me talking about Anarchism.
I will amend my statement, however, for sake of clarity. I said that to make choices without regard for others or the consequences of one's actions is to Rebel. This is inaccurate.
Rebellion is merely the refusal or disobedience of order or authority. For example, the American Civil Rights movement could be described as a Rebellion, as it involved a great deal of civic disobedience.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Describing Anarchism as denying all government entirely seems to miss the point that Anarchism is a form of mutual self governance.
Anarchism, as a philosophy promoting Anarchy, is
defined as opposition to all government entirely. Mutual self governance is still governance. It can take the form of a democracy, a republic, a commune, a soviet, or whatever other governmental form you desire, but none of those are Anarchies. Anarchy is an utter lack of governance. ἀν + ἀρχή = Without Authority. The moment anyone has authority, you have a form of government. Mutual self governance in any form invests authority in the community or in specific individuals. It therefor
cannot be Anarchy, and vice versa.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

Consider the Anarchists of the Spanish revolutionary war. They weren't interested in taking over anything, they left at least one governor in place who said (with great political savvy) "I serve at your pleasure". They just weren't going to acquiesce to Franco's regime in the territory they held.
I have considerd them. And I
consider them to not be true Anarchists, and to be operating under a misnomer. I would class them as Anti-Fascists or Anti-Dictatorialists, as their primary motivation and goal was the removal of Franco. What they or anyone else called their movement is irrelevant.
QUOTE (Sir_Psycho @ Mar 20 2013, 12:57 PM)

The same goes for the three groups in Loose Alliances. The Black Crescent are a medical service who disregard the laws regarding SINs and extraterritoriality, because they decided those rules aren't relevant to provide medical care. They might shoot at corpsec, but they don't DENY say, Crashcart or Docwagon. The Anarchist Black Cross are much the same, but in regards to SINs and borders. They're not trying to remove borders, just circumvent them. Perhaps that falls outside of your definitions.
As I have stated, a mere disregard for law does not make you an Anarchist. Unless their underlying political and philosophical motiviations are to undermine any and all governance, then they are not true Anarchists. Personally, I would class them as some form of Rebel capitalist or humanitarian venture, depending on whether their focus is more on making a profit or more on providing aide. Similar organizations already exist in our own world - for example, Médecins Sans Frontières is relatively comparable to such, although they attempt to conduct their work within the confines of international law rather than directly defying it.
~Umi