" the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing"
yes, and they shall never, ever be tweaked or adapted by anyone, as that would clearly make them not an anarchist.
good riddance, you condescending, narrow minded ideologue.
@dot: your patience is admirable.
"the principles of anarchist thought are laid out in two hundred years of writing."
...another way of saying 'it hath been written' which, for not being a religious person, comes across as kinda biblical on your part.
late to this game, but...
@iconoclast: "Since anarchism by definition is againts hierarchies then one can expect a good part of it being concerned positively with equality. "
that draws an implicit (and completely false) dichotomy: hierarchy or equality. eliminating hierarchy in no way implies some sort of "equality" (whatever that means). equality, like rights, are terms that only make sense when everybody is shoehorned into a single worldview; one that inherently requires some "objective" "authority" to determine a) what rights are granted to whom, and b) what measures constitute a ranking of "equal" (between every individual, with all their differences at every level).
[i think i just had a brief affair with "quotes"]
It wasn't me that down voted you, but I'm going to assume it has to do with 'equality,' anarchism, and democracy. Democracy involves some sort of repression of the individual and/or usually subjugates the individual to the will of others and/or majority. I find the definition and etymology of democracy to be problematic and have difficulties seeing how it's compatible with anarchism. I have no idea of what you mean by 'equality.' Here's a thread/question that better explains anarchist issues with democracy. http://anarchy101.org/114/what-is-the-anarchist-problem-with-democracy
"The golden rule is another way of describing it... I think."
i understand the golden rule as: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
as dot (i think?) pointed out in another thread (fuck if i can remember which), i don't want people treating me the way *they* want to be treated, but rather the way *i* want to be treated. and likewise how i treat them, assumedly.
but that does point out one way in which the golden rule fits into liberal ideology. only by assuming a "sameness" (equality?) between *all* individuals - as prescribed by mass society - could such concepts be desirable.
also, what is "normal"?