Monthly Archives: November 2014

The following was written in response to internet questions regarding the Sui Generis and in particular this post here-   I’m now going off to work on the ‘sui generis authority is not externally based’ essay, because I’ve realised greater explanation is required as to what sui generis *is* and *is not*.

          You write that you are “the wrong individual” of whom to ask questions of the practicalities of Sui Generis anarchism.

Let’s stop right there. I do not refer to the Sui Generis ‘anarchism’, I refer to to the Sui Generis platform as the Sui Generis. You’re the one referring to it as anarchism. They’re not the same thing, as I’ve pointed out to you before: anarchism is a PHILOSOPHY, Sui Generis is a clearly demonstrable *physical principle* of living organisms that is ALSO a principle of LAW. These are *not the same thing* as a political THEORY.
I am genuinely open to the possibility that anarchism is practical, and I am very interested in your arguments to that effect, so your unwillingness to provide any is… well, disappointing. I wonder too why you would reject the opportunity to put forward those arguments not just to me but also to other readers of your blog, when from what I can tell the point of your blog is to advocate for social, not just personal, change.
I  advocate social *transformation*, not ‘change’, because these two things are *also* NOT the same thing. Transformation is the only thing I’m interested in. I’m not interested in *political philosophies*, for the reasons I’ve stated to you before. I’m totally up for discussing *principles* and how these transform the current state of play on the planet, and I’m *not* interested in arguing or debating, which is what *philosophies* create: disagreement. Dissension. Entanglement in details. Schisms. THIS is why I am NOT interested in *philosophies*- humans like to kill each other because of differences. The Sui Generis principle demonstrates how *differences are part of the system* and demonstrates the platform from which this simple principle can be embraced so that humans will stop killing each other, arguing with each other, persecuting each other, demonising each other, ostracising each other etc over *the differences which are a fundamental part of the physical dimensional platform*. Anything else is not of interest to me because it’s a mechanism of Empire: anything that does NOT embrace the Sui Generis of a living organism is heteronomy. Heteronomy is the foundational platform of Empire.

To be fair, you have given *other* reasons why you think that we should adopt Sui Generis anarchism, they just don’t move me. You write that it is justified by the principle that no being has authority over any other being. In my view, the almost paradoxical truth is that the best way of upholding this principle is to maintain, rather than to dissolve, collectively-recognised external authorities – without them, there is nothing to prevent dog-eat-dog behaviour, vigilante justice and the unchecked spiral of violence/counter-violence due to unresolvable disputes. Without external authority, nothing prevents beings from regularly exercising self-appointed authority over other beings, very probably leading to more, not fewer, violations of this principle.
History demonstrates that the path you advocate is useless for achieving the aims you desire. Again I will say it- Sui Generis is neither philosophy or theory. Anarchism is a political philosophy and theory- as are *all other political platforms*. Sui Generis is not political. It’s a principle upon which a range of individual and social behaviours arise from.

Your own subjective reality is being demonstrated by your belief- not knowledge, but belief- that an external authority is *necessary* to stop individuals from being horrendous to one another, yet it is the *external authorities* of the planet that are at the forefront of this horrendous behaviour. Heteronomy is both the belief in and the action of domination and control of one another and while individuals are able to look out and observe agencies dominating and controlling them (under, apparently, your banner of ‘for their own good’) then *individuals will do the same to other individuals*. This is amply demonstrated by *human history*: what you are advocating is the same system that already exists, the failures of which are amply demonstrated throughout several thousand years of mainstream historical record.

You talk about ‘unresolvable disputes’, yet I’ve already demonstrated to you previously that your notion of ‘disputes’ is actually about individuals believing that it is right and proper for them to dominate and control other individuals, groups, organisms and systems. The fundamental problem is this belief in heteronomy. Remove the ‘right’ to dominate, control or harm another individual and overnight there is the platform for world peace. Nobody has to agree on anything, there’s no voting about it, no arguing, just the recognition of something that is PHYSICALLY DEMONSTRABLE and which also underpins a crucial element of LAW. Sui generis is ALREADY IN THE LAW, it’s simply being repressed.

You are confused if you think that I am imagining a world in which there is no palpable and decisive response to an individual choosing to practice heteronomy- I absolutely do know that there will be consequences for those that choose to dominate and control another, but it won’t be via the current system of response to ‘violation’ that Empire has developed for its own ends, which translates as ‘law’. Law has nothing to do with sui generis and the natural boundaries that arise from the practice of it, but individuals can’t get to that part until they begin to practice it. Again, it’s not a THEORY, it’s a *physical principle*, and physical principles have their own way of behaving.
Your suggestion of “collectively-recognised external authorities” demonstrates the problem in the description you gave it: external. The authority of the individual is not their own, it must be handed over to another group. This does not work. It is impossible to create an external authority that satisfies the deep needs of every individual within ANY community, so what you’re going for is a ‘one size fits all badly’ solution that again relies on imposing some kind of ‘collectively agreed’ consensus reality approved parameters upon ALL individuals within that sphere. What part of ‘domination and control’ is this NOT? This is, by your own demonstration of its function, another form of *domination and control*, which has demonstrated its ability to attract and reward *predators* since the beginning of consensus reality approved written history. What part of ‘but OUR heteronomy is better than THEIRS’ don’t you get? You’re just reduxing the same old mechanisms as have always demonstrated themselves to be nothing but differently shaped tools of Empire’s design. I’m curious as to why you think that’s effective- obviously part of it is that you think the heteronomy your ruling authority would be using would be better than anyone else’s.
I am NOT interested in what does not work. I’m not interested in WHY you think dominating and controlling others is necessary because history has proven that no matter WHY a group thinks it’s ‘necessary’, those who are being dominated and controlled *always suffer the cost* and then the recyling nature of ‘revolutions’ occur. It’s a stupid system that doesn’t work because heteronomy seeks to annul a unique individual into a THING and the unique code within them *won’t tolerate that*. There are a number of mathematical and scientific theories that seek to demonstrate the underlying principle of WHY systems and organisms won’t tolerate being controlled for long, and for me all these are simply pointing to the principle of the Sui Generis. Authority moves in very different ways when individuals are living by their own authority, recognising the principle of ‘do no harm’ and the consequences of violating that principle. One of the reasons individuals feel free to constantly violate one another and the planet is because there is currently no consequence- and that is shifting, NOT to a *different* form of ‘external authority’, but within the individuals themselves.

There is also another principle: that we should organise society in the way that best achieves equity, harmony and safety, and that best meets the needs and goals of its members. I am not convinced that Sui Generis anarchism satisfies this principle better than democracy.

Democracy is the naked Emperor. The ideologies you are espousing are fundamentally and demonstrably flawed because what you are arguing is a different ‘one size fits all badly’ kind of system, in which the individuals that are *again* undersupported within that system are marginalised and demonised. Every system historically that has attempted to do politically what modern manufacturing has done to clothing- created a range of ‘sizes’ that everyone is supposed to conform to- has utterly failed and only succeeded in creating NEW groups that are vilified. The political path you’re advocating is the same OLD one that has been used to oppress certain groups while, over time, maximising the interests of specific groups due to a number of ‘desirable’ markers.

A case in point: the raging debate over gender and sexuality issues within any given community. Under the principle of Sui Generis, there are a few simple questions we can ask ourselves to discover what action, if any, needs to be taken in our community around this issue. These questions are- “Does it involve me personally?” No. “Is anyone being harmed (as in, are the individuals involved there as a result of full capacity to knowingly give enthusiastic consent)? No-one is being harmed. Conclusion: it’s none of my business! It is none of my business what individuals choose to do with others who have full capacity to give enthusiastic consent to ANY activity. NONE. It doesn’t matter WHAT the issue is- gender choices, sexual choices, colour, race, creed, the way an individual likes to live, their view of the multiverse- NONE of it is anyone else’s business unless HARM is being done to another. That’s it! Simple stuff! No endless debates, no dogmas, no domination, no subjugation, no ‘re-education’ disguised as ‘setting someone straight’, NO INTERFERENCE WITH ANOTHER AT ALL.

Heteronomy strips the ability of individuals to CONSENT or NOT CONSENT to ANY activity. Democracy is heteronomy by mob rule- the majority get, via the banner of consensus reality and ‘majority vote’, to *dominate and control others* against their wishes and preferences. Democracy is a mechanism by which the choices of those NOT of the majority can be dismissed via a number of convenient mechanisms and rationalisations, NONE of which I’m interested in because I’m not interested in systems that treat unique elements as groups, classifications, homogenies etc. This is what ‘democracy’ does: individuals are no longer unique, sui generis Beings, they’re numbers in a mass. THAT is part of the problem, yet the only system you can advocate doesn’t solve that problem because YOU are afraid that without external authorities wielding ‘order’ via force, the planetary population will run amok. Why will they do that? Because they’ve been educated by EMPIRE to do that!

You imply that our democratic system is being forced upon you – “if they all want to get together and do something their way that’s fine and hunky dory, *as long as they don’t try to enforce it on everyone else*” – yet if you get your way, Sui Generis anarchism will be forced upon those of us who believe that democracy is a better solution, so I don’t see much validity to this complaint.

Your language is odd- I wasn’t complaining, I was pointing out *what currently is*, which is that a whole heap of atrocity is being pointed at me, WITHOUT MY CONSENT, as a result of ‘democracy’. It’s the way democracy is BUILT. Sui generis in no way prevents *individuals* from forming whatever collectives they wish to engage in and from doing whatever they want, providing that this is NOT enforced on ANY WHO DO NOT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT, which includes the *ownership of children*: children do NOT have the ability to give informed consent and are manipulated by their emotional alliances to family and community. This is not consent, so the collective has no foundation for imposing their particular ideology onto a child. In a Sui Generis system, children are not considered the *property* of their parents because children are born with their OWN immature sui generis: what is offered to the child is the opportunity to live into their own unique Being, develop their own perspectives, explore their own interests and make their own INFORMED choices. Agendas- ‘democratic’ or otherwise- have no place anywhere within Sui Generis.

So, your assertion is flawed: it is not *I* that violates your principles to do whatever you like, it is in the demand that YOUR choice of ‘democracy’ be enforced on ME. I would NEVER consent to that. Never. And then what? Are you going to bring in your enforcers to FORCE my compliance? To FORCE everyone else who doesn’t consent? And this is different from what’s going on in the world how?  You are free to make decisions *for you* and THAT IS ALL- you can get together and decide to live ‘democratically’ and that’s fine until you start deciding that you CONTROL this or that bit of land, that you have THIS territory and you can do whatever you like with it.

No, no you can’t. Sui Generis extends to ALL living systems, including eco-systems, the land, the planet and all Life on it. YOU have authority ONLY over YOU: you don’t get to decide for any living creature, Being or system in the name of ‘human dominance’ or ‘resource based economies’ or any of the OTHER decrees whereby one group has gone to another and claimed authority over them. You could TRY that sort of crap, it’s only going to start a conflict, which is what Heteronomy does so well.

I agree with you that there are serious problems with our current political system, including its leadership. The Abbott government appals me. I am also 100% in agreement with you as to the abhorrence of the (continuing) dispossession and mistreatment of the indigenous peoples of various lands, including “our” own, in the course of the illegitimate and brutal colonisation by Europeans. Yes, the system under which we still live permitted those injustices. Injustice though is not an inevitable consequence of democracy, it is a consequence of unjust humans and human attitudes. I don’t see how anarchism would better save us from bad attitudes than democracy.

Injustice though is not an inevitable consequence of democracy, it is a consequence of unjust humans and human attitudes. I don’t see how anarchism would better save us from bad attitudes than democracy.

Democracy as a vehicle, for the reasons (and more) that I’ve put forth to you here, are intertwined. You cannot separate them, no matter how much you try, because it’s a system of domination and control. You can’t actually see what I’m talking about because you have Sui Generis and Anarchy intertwined. They’re not. Perhaps my insistent disentangling in this response will finally allow for a discussion on what I AM talking about, rather than your own confusion of it.

The government of the day is nothing more than a reflection of the population and what it is prepared to accept. Colonisation was done in the name of ‘divine right’, democracy does Empire’s work in the name of ‘political right’. They’re the same thing.

My favoured solution to the problem of abuse of concentrated political power is direct, participatory democracy, especially in both local communities and businesses/corporations/organisations, and especially internet-based, by which the public can propose and vote on the same legislative and executive decisions that political representatives can, and by which it can, given a majority, override parliamentary decisions. This could, I believe, achieve the (social) evolution you seek without the problems that anarchism has, and would even in itself be an example of that evolution.

You’re totally free to try that. You’re not free to IMPOSE IT on any other individual, creature, land base or living system. The planet does not  ‘belong’ to humans; humans co-exist with a host of living creatures and Beings that they’ve been busily extermination because of Heteronomy.

I will never consent to rule by domination; I will never consent to be RULED by anyone, no matter how many rationalisations are presented to try and convince me that it’s ok for someone to take my own authority from me. It’s not and it never will be. You’re free to try doing what was attempted over and over in the past- ‘democratic rule by citizen participation’- and you WILL leave me out of it, because anything else would be exactly the same as the action of Empire’s colonisation that you say you find abhorrent and ‘illegitimate’. Again, if I don’t consent, what are you going to do? Send enforcers? Penalise me through use of force and the rule of law?

Re “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”: I have read it before, but it is a great read, and at your prompting I enjoyed it a second time, so, thanks. To put things in context: I have been coding since I was ten, using Linux and other free/open source software since 1995, and I fell in love with the free/open source way at first sight. Yes, the free/open source community is very effective at what it does. The problem is in scaling it up to the level of an entire society: in the open source community, there is nothing that particularly *needs* to be done, and people are thus free to solely “scratch their personal itches”, as Eric puts it, without any particular problems arising from this approach; in society at large, however, certain tasks, sometimes unpalatable, *do* need to be performed independently of whether they scratch any personal itch – in particular, the development and maintenance of communal infrastructure and agriculture. These tasks neglected, society fails or at least degenerates, and it is not clear to me what under a moneyless anarchism would motivate people to perform them given the absence of a financial incentive: the financial incentive stems from a need to survive personally, such that one’s personal survival is linked with collective survival in the sense that socially necessary tasks are almost guaranteed to be undertaken because by paying people to do them, often out of public funds, we satisfy their survival needs. At least, that’s the way I see it.

“in society at large, however, certain tasks, sometimes unpalatable, *do* need to be performed independently of whether they scratch any personal itch – in particular, the development and maintenance of communal infrastructure and agriculture. These tasks neglected, society fails or at least degenerates, and it is not clear to me what under a moneyless anarchism would motivate people to perform them given the absence of a financial incentive ”

Again you demonstrate a belief system about individuals that suggests that without some kind of inducive carrot, they’ll all be either clubbing one another over the head or sitting about scratching their butts. You are talking about your own narrow perspective and view, NOT the world that *I* inhabit: how on earth did all those indigenous societies last for so long without some external authority prodding them along into ‘productive behaviour’? Gosh, we should all be utterly thankful that the Colonisers came along, who KNOWS where we’d be without them?

Far, far better off, as it turns out. Honestly, the Western mindset and ignorance of GLOBAL perspective demonstrated in your comments makes it difficult for me to respond without a degree of head shaking; indigenous cultures all over the world would be laughing at the suggestions you’re making if they weren’t so intertwined with a way of Being that is singularly and globally suicidal.

I’ve lived on communities and communal infrastructures get done *without* some external authority’s exhortations and pushing. Agriculture is death; *living systems* are not agriculture and agriculture cannot continue on the planet as it’s been currently practiced because it creates *dead soil and dustbowls*. I suggest you do some research on complex, small scale food systems via Vendana Shiva and permaculture research. Society fails/degenerates because of the *fundamental unsustainability of the methods of that society*- there are some societies on the planet that have been continuing for tens of thousands of years, all without the ‘help’ of a financial system paying them to do things they don’t want to do.

You really have no idea how *conscious* individuals work. As my other writing demonstrates, I’m not interested in the survival of  *unconscious* individuals because they are dangerous to the wellbeing of conscious individuals. I’m not in the slightest bit interested in keeping the unconscious going.

The RBE/TZM/TVP/Automation Socialism folk seem to believe that automation would save us from the problem of lack of financial incentive. Perhaps they are right – it is certainly a seductive possibility, however, it is not yet a reality, and, in any case, I think that there needs to be a broader conversation about whether a highly industrial, technological and/or automated society is even preferable or a good idea given the harm it does to ecologies, environment and other life, as well as the way that it tends to isolate humanity and individuals in materialism rather than connecting them in a more natural and spiritual existence. Deep Green Resistance have certainly taken a strong stand on this.

I don’t know how this came up: I’m not into the ‘technology will save us all’ view of the world. I’m not an advocate of RBE’s and the current state of the planet demonstrates that we don’t really have time for ‘broader conversations’ about preferences when species are dying every day. I’m mentioned in my writings that I’m a fan of Derrick Jensen’s perspective on the current state of play and that it’s civilisation that has to go; there’s no question of that for me. I’m interested in creating *what comes after* on a better foundation than the rubbish that has gone on before.

Re spiritual authority, have you looked into near-death experiences (NDEs)? They strongly suggest that there exists a spiritual being (or beings) who knows better than we do what is best for us, yet who allows us to exercise our free will anyway, which in turn suggests a benevolent and freedom-loving spiritual authority.

I’ve had my own experiences of these and many other related things and I have different perspectives on those, based on what I experienced. Again, I will express it: I don’t have an issue with an individual having *whatever belief and perspective they embody*, it’s when they impose that ONTO ME that it becomes problematic. Individuals are free to embrace and practice whatever they wish- their authority begins AND ENDS with themselves.  There is no Being of any kind that ALLOWS me to choose; I am Sui Generis and I do not consent to be dominated by ANY Being. You are free to consent to whatever reality YOU wish. This is the principle of Sui Generis extending out into every realm and part of the multiverse.

You write of my “own subjective experience” as if to suggest that it cannot correspond to an objective truth, and in one of the essays you link to you dismiss as “a personal choice” the idea of God, an empirical matter, apparently because it conflicts with your notion of Sui Generis, an abstract principle. I think, instead, with respect to truth claims, that empirical evidence takes precedence over abstract principles, and that there is enough evidence for the existence of God that it cannot be dismissed simply because it is (perceived to be) inconvenient to Sui Generis.

I do not recognise objective truths when it comes to subjective experiences for obvious reasons; as soon as one gets into the realm of ‘subjective experience’ EVERYONE has their own unique take on it. Sui Generis is not an ABSTRACT principle, it’s a physically demonstrable one, so your suggestion that it’s just my ‘notion’ is an indication that you don’t actually grasp what I’m talking about. Empirical claims of subjective experience do NOT take precedence over physically demonstrable principles, so you’ll need to reconfigure your objection to my position on ‘gods’ before it makes sense.

Your perspective seems to be (and please correct me if I have misunderstood you) that all “spiritual” phenomena are really manifestations of Empire, so that it is quite simply humanity versus Empire. Does it really seem likely though that we are battling Empire alone? What a depressing thought! In fact, countless reports of individuals across the ages attest that we are *not* alone in our battles. I am not sure why you would dismiss this positive news!

Your misinterpretation of my perspective is your own; you really haven’t read much of my writing, have you? Do you know what the Otherkind in ‘songsfortheotherkind’ is actually a reference to? I do NOT consider that we’re dealing with Empire on our own, nor do I EVER suggest that all spiritual phenomena are Empire manifestations; what I DO say is “spiritual heteronomy” is a product of Empire. There is a huge distinction between these two things for me. My experiences of the Otherrealms from childhood are in part what informed my foundation of perspective before I discovered the term ‘Sui Generis’ buried in the law; you have no idea at all what I know and experience. I will tell you this: all the Creators that I have ever experienced have ZERO interest in being ‘authorities’ of any kind, controlling or benign; heteronomy in spiritual form is no different than it is in any other form.

Re your response to the challenges I raised: some of our disagreements seem to stem from (what I see as) your exaggeration of the differences between certain words/concepts. Perhaps you do this to establish a unique identity for your thought, which would be understandable, but whatever the reason is, it makes communication more difficult. A few examples: change versus transformation; (formal) agreements versus contracts; principles versus philosophy; disagreements versus different wants. Because of this (that we might not disagree so much in principles as in definitions), and because this email is already long enough, I’ll avoid responding in that part of our exchange, with the exception of what follows.

Are you serious- no distinction between principle and philosophy? Disagreements vs different wants?  0-o

Your inability to recognise distinctions between seemingly similar appearing things is, to be frank,  not my problem: there is a great deal of information on the net regarding the deep importance of distinction between similar linguistic forms and how much of Empire’s ability to slide wrong through the cracks is via its ability to distort linguistic forms. I make these distinctions not because I’m trying to “establish a unique identity for [my] thought”, as you suggest, but because these distinctions are IMPORTANT. Do you have a background in law studies and trusts? Do you know the distinctions between a contract and an agreement? Do you know WHY they’re important distinctions? Do you know what a contract *does* in terms of evolution? Do you know that contracts require an entire infrastructure to enforce? I’ve written extensively on the issue of contracts in the past and why they’re problematic.

I have a background in many, many areas of study and I’ve learned that there is a tendency for MANY individuals to think that they know what something means or is being spoken about when they actually don’t- it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is why I’m really, really clear with the distinctions that I make, but if you think that these things aren’t important then you don’t actually know what is being discussed. This makes it really difficult for me to respond in a way that makes sense.

I don’t think that you have adequately answered the following question: if you reject collectively-recognised external authorities as a means of last resort of resolving disputes, then, when a dispute between two parties becomes intractable – as some inevitably will and do – how do you propose that it be resolved? In one of the links that you offer, you write “I’m not in the least bit interested in appealing to any external authority to take care of any situation that I’m facing- I want to do that on my own”. This is admirable but unrealistic: sometimes, the person/group with whom you are dealing will not be reasonable, or will even be actively exploitative. Without an external authority, your “taking [personal] care” of such situations might amount to accepting being exploited, or, alternatively, to gathering together a group of supportive friends and exacting vigilante justice upon the exploiter, potentially leading to a protracted and ungoverned conflict between your supporters and his/hers.

I don’t think this outcome will happen at all, because I know that the principle of Sui Generis carries with it its own ‘immune system response’ for wont of a better description. That, though, requires a whole other detailed response that I’d rather write as an essay in its own right; suffice to say that, in my own thinking, *none* of the scenarios that you described are the reality that I experience. From childhood I was aware that I could trigger deeply cognitively and physiologically dissonant states in certain types of individuals…

In this respect, you conclude your post with: “If something happens between mySelf and another individual, then it’s up to me to go to them and attempt to sort something out; if that doesn’t work, then I just let it go and get on with my life *unless they’re harming me*, in which case entirely different principles come into play”. It would be very helpful for you to elaborate on these different principles. If they do not amount to vigilante justice as I have just suggested, then what exactly are they? Also, do you acknowledge that having to sometimes accept being taken advantage of (which “just let[ting] it go” might, amongst other things, cover) is a serious drawback to your proposed (a)political system?

‘Letting it go’ in no way involves me getting taken advantage of because depending on the degree of issue between myself and the other individual, it can range from agreeing to disagree to disconnecting completely from that individual. There’s no question of ‘being taken advantage of': taking advantage of another is an act of heteronomy and abuse. I have zero tolerance for either; they are both a violation of the Sui Generis of another Being. I do not accept that there is EVER a time when an individual just has to ‘accept’ being abused in any way by another. Never.

You also write, with respect to the specific example I offered: “If, in your example, the sports group decides they have more ‘right’ to the resources than the second, then the sports group has just moved from Sui Generis to heteronomy, in which case the second group has a stronger base of engagement: does the sports group *really* wish to divest itself of the myriads of advantages that Sui Generis gifts them?”. In fact, I have no doubt that some individuals/groups *would* be unscrupulous enough as to adopt and advocate Sui Generis where it benefits them, and to dispense with it where, as in this case, it does not.

Then what they’ve ‘adopted’ isn’t Sui Generis, it’s heteronomy and manipulation. Sui Generis isn’t something you put on and off like a hat; it’s the recognition of a physically demonstrable principle that creates specific legal principles when applied to human behaviour and society. When you start discussing *this*, we’ll be having a different discussion; so far I’m simply constantly trying to get across to you the distinction between what you’re talking about and what *I* am talking about.

 It would be very nice to believe that this would never occur, but again, not very realistic. As I wrote in my last email, there are so many damaged people in the world that anarchism is currently probably not a practical choice – but again, I am open to examples of effective anarchist methods that could avoid this problem, should you change your mind about choosing to present them.

Actually being clear on what I’m talking about will be a first step; comprehending what I said I wasn’t prepared to discuss would be the second. You keep interpreting me through a lens that isn’t mine.

Finally, just to be clear: I am not antagonistic to either yourself or Sui Generis, in fact I like you both, I am just not (yet) convinced that the anarchism you say Sui Generis lays a foundation for is practical, much less that it is preferable.

Having a conversation where you stop referring to the Sui Generis as anarchism would be awesome and far more productive. :)