Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wanna Learn About Anarchism

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 9:37:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A newb in politics here and I'd like to start with anarchism. So, does anyone have good links for me? Opinions on it?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 9:56:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchism is chaos because that is what anarchism means. It means no law and every man for himself. The biggest stick rules. We should have a state because a democratic state with checks and balances and accountability and transparency and ponies would serve its citizens the perfect mixture of equality, justice, and prosperity. It doesn't matter that 99.99% of states are barbaric failures because those are not the kind of states I advocate. I only advocate good states.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... is quite a good starting place.

My prognosis is that it takes a very long time to cleanse the orthodox political methodology (aped above) from your system, and a little longer to understand anarchism.

For example, I've argued extensively with people on this website about how to define a state. They can never give me anything that doesn't also include the boyscouts. They just walk away eventually. I mean how can you call yourself a statist if you can't even define a state? If you are going to be one of those people, you are going to make very very little progress towards understanding anarchy, let alone general political philosophy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:01:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchism is the idea that all these problems we cannot seem to get fixed with our government are actually addressable without it. What you usually want to decide first, if you're deciding on questioning the legitimacy of our central authority, is what role you see the free market playing in your system. Either we can try to maintain a similar capitalistic scheme to what we have now (anarcho capitalism, anarchist-right) or we can try to change the way the market works. There are many different ways to go about changing things, but two alternatives that seem to be most common are mutualists and communists. Communists are "leftist" anarchists because they have pretty much given up on the market and simply wish for communities to cooperate like one single business, while mutualists are sort of centrists which wish to keep the market but put limits on how easily the means of production can be secured by a firm.
kfc
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:04:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:01:01 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Either we can try to maintain a similar capitalistic scheme to what we have now (anarcho capitalism, anarchist-right)
Anarcho capitalism = property rights + self ownership. The status quo is one where everyone's property rights are systematically violated via taxation and regulation. That's not very "anarcho-capitalist".

If you're going to address anarcho-capitalism maybe you should use the ancaps' very clear definition of capitalism, instead of your own "hur hur exploitation" definition.

or we can try to change the way the market works. There are many different ways to go about changing things, but two alternatives that seem to be most common are mutualists and communists. Communists are "leftist" anarchists because they have pretty much given up on the market and simply wish for communities to cooperate like one single business, while mutualists are sort of centrists which wish to keep the market but put limits on how easily the means of production can be secured by a firm.

This sounds like statism except you aren't calling it statism.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:37:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:04:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:01:01 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Either we can try to maintain a similar capitalistic scheme to what we have now (anarcho capitalism, anarchist-right)
Anarcho capitalism = property rights + self ownership. The status quo is one where everyone's property rights are systematically violated via taxation and regulation. That's not very "anarcho-capitalist".

If you're going to address anarcho-capitalism maybe you should use the ancaps' very clear definition of capitalism, instead of your own "hur hur exploitation" definition.

clear=/=logical. Self-ownership sounds nice but owning yourself doesn't mean much if someone else owns the means of production and can lever control over you. The concept is made of ash and disintegrates when you touch it.

or we can try to change the way the market works. There are many different ways to go about changing things, but two alternatives that seem to be most common are mutualists and communists. Communists are "leftist" anarchists because they have pretty much given up on the market and simply wish for communities to cooperate like one single business, while mutualists are sort of centrists which wish to keep the market but put limits on how easily the means of production can be secured by a firm.

This sounds like statism except you aren't calling it statism.

How so? Must everything that Sieben doesn't support become statism?
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:51:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:37:43 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
A newb in politics here and I'd like to start with anarchism. So, does anyone have good links for me? Opinions on it?

look what you've now started.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Kropotkin's famed Anarchism entry for the Encyclopedia Brittanica: http://www.blackcrayon.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:42:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:37:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

clear=/=logical. Self-ownership sounds nice but owning yourself doesn't mean much if someone else owns the means of production and can lever control over you. The concept is made of ash and disintegrates when you touch it.

Bolded. Anarcho capitalism is CONCEPTUALLY clear. It is possible to conceive of a system where people aren't attacked and don't mess with each other's projects.

But hypotheticals are cool. What if property rights had a bad outcome this one time? Guess we can't have property rights. What if self ownership were abused in a similar way? Guess we can't have self ownership. What if hypotheticals didn't demonstrate anything about the real world? hmm...

This sounds like statism except you aren't calling it statism.

How so? Must everything that Sieben doesn't support become statism?

No. I think ancom is distinct from statism. I just don't think your account of ancom is.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:47:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:51:36 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/29/2011 9:37:43 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
A newb in politics here and I'd like to start with anarchism. So, does anyone have good links for me? Opinions on it?

look what you've now started.

Conflict
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 5:24:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:42:17 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:37:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

clear=/=logical. Self-ownership sounds nice but owning yourself doesn't mean much if someone else owns the means of production and can lever control over you. The concept is made of ash and disintegrates when you touch it.

Bolded. Anarcho capitalism is CONCEPTUALLY clear. It is possible to conceive of a system where people aren't attacked and don't mess with each other's projects.

But hypotheticals are cool. What if property rights had a bad outcome this one time? Guess we can't have property rights. What if self ownership were abused in a similar way? Guess we can't have self ownership. What if hypotheticals didn't demonstrate anything about the real world? hmm...

This sounds like statism except you aren't calling it statism.

How so? Must everything that Sieben doesn't support become statism?

No. I think ancom is distinct from statism. I just don't think your account of ancom is.

My account does not make the rigid distinction. If a commune wishes to conduct itself as a state does, then it has that liberty.
kfc
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 5:51:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy is a complete absurdity.

Anarchy is only possible in the sense that it already exists.

Society is anarchistic at the base, whether a silly anarchist idealist wants to believe it or not.

I consider anarchy to be a matter of awareness more than anything.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 8:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 5:51:30 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is a complete absurdity.

Anarchy is only possible in the sense that it already exists.

Society is anarchistic at the base, whether a silly anarchist idealist wants to believe it or not.

I consider anarchy to be a matter of awareness more than anything.

What you don't seem to understand is that we (well, I guess I only speak for myself but it's not a difficult concept) understand what you mean when you say that "society is anarchistic at the base" but we dissent from your definition of anarchism and your implication that what has arisen through social determinism, political inertia, or whatever else explains the existence of the contemporary state is somehow desirable by virtue of its simply being a sociopolitical phenomenon.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 8:40:07 PM, Grape wrote:
At 4/29/2011 5:51:30 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarchy is a complete absurdity.

Anarchy is only possible in the sense that it already exists.

Society is anarchistic at the base, whether a silly anarchist idealist wants to believe it or not.

I consider anarchy to be a matter of awareness more than anything.

What you don't seem to understand is that we (well, I guess I only speak for myself but it's not a difficult concept) understand what you mean when you say that "society is anarchistic at the base" but we dissent from your definition of anarchism and your implication that what has arisen through social determinism, political inertia, or whatever else explains the existence of the contemporary state is somehow desirable by virtue of its simply being a sociopolitical phenomenon.

I never said that I found the state desirable. I do believe that the rise of the state is inevitable.

I've never, not once defended the state on this site. Before coming here, I never encountered a group of anarchists before. I wanted to see whether or not they actually knew what they were talking about, or if they were just a bunch of "oi oi! The establishment!" type punks or something. I wanted to gauge the depth of the thought that went into this ideological position.

Anarchists around here seem to think of anarchy almost as if it is a type of system for governing things instead of a theory of how people scurry about and tend to do their business.

There is no such thing as a monopoly on violence. As long as people can kill each other, you can't have a monopoly on violence. The state just so happens to have the most guns.

Think of society as being anarchistic, and the state just so happens to be a very powerful institution. So powerful that it can wave its d!ck around, and steal money from other lesser institutions within its zone of control, give special privileges to others, and even break up ones that become large enough to possibly threaten the state itself. It meddles in economic affairs in an attempt to keep things balanced in the way that it wants.

If the state(which is really just the most powerful and influential institution in a geographic region) collapses, what happens? Competition through varying means between the now mostly liberated lesser institutions proceeds unchained. An Institution may possibly gain a significant amount of power, either through trade, violence, or some other form of diplomacy.This institution may now be able to exert greater influence over the other institutions around it. Give it enough time, and enough support from the people around it, and a new state rises, albeit in a different form.

Anarchy is not a way of running things.. It is an ideal where one institution doesn't gain enough coercive power to screw everything up.

The problem is this.. You give everyone freedom, and people will take away each others freedom. You enforce equality, then people aren't truly free.

An-cap is like the former, an-soc is like the later.

They are both pretty much amount to about the same thing.

The closest you can come to being absolutely free is getting your head on straight.

But what do I know, I'm crazy. A cup of coffee with an eyelash floating in it told me all this.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:26:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:05:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

I never said that I found the state desirable. I do believe that the rise of the state is inevitable.


Fine. I withdraw that comment.

I've never, not once defended the state on this site. Before coming here, I never encountered a group of anarchists before. I wanted to see whether or not they actually knew what they were talking about, or if they were just a bunch of "oi oi! The establishment!" type punks or something. I wanted to gauge the depth of the thought that went into this ideological position.


Fair enough. We're not like that here. Some of us even read books.

Anarchists around here seem to think of anarchy almost as if it is a type of system for governing things instead of a theory of how people


Yes, I consider anarchy a system of social organization. Understanding how people " scurry about and tend to do their business" is praxeology, or more widely economics. That's quite fascinating as well and much of my understanding of that leads me to conclude the superiority of anarchy to the state, but that's not how I define anarchy. I define anarchy as a system of social organization under which all aggressive interactions (meaning violence against nonviolent people) are prohibited.

There is no such thing as a monopoly on violence. As long as people can kill each other, you can't have a monopoly on violence. The state just so happens to have the most guns.


Yes, just as state-mandated monopoly corporation doesn't have a monopoly on goods if the black market can provide them. Indeed, the state often allows for violence in self defense and doesn't have a sole monopoly. However, it claims and attempts to enforce a legal monopoly and aggression (which is never permitted) and arbitration (which should be up to the market, as well as a host of other services the state provides).

Think of society as being anarchistic, and the state just so happens to be a very powerful institution. So powerful that it can wave its d!ck around, and steal money from other lesser institutions within its zone of control, give special privileges to others, and even break up ones that become large enough to possibly threaten the state itself. It meddles in economic affairs in an attempt to keep things balanced in the way that it wants.


No. If such an organization exists, we would say that it has used aggression against its victims to drive them out of anarchy and into a state of compulsory social organization. If you define anarchy as a system in which human actors make individual decisions and take individual actions in a system with no inherent order, that's just called reality. As I said, I understand what you're saying, but I don't define that as anarchy.

If the state(which is really just the most powerful and influential institution in a geographic region) collapses, what happens?

No, because any powerful organization isn't a state, it has to do certain things. Specifically, it must violation the Non-Aggression Principle.

Competition through varying means between the now mostly liberated lesser institutions proceeds unchained. An Institution may possibly gain a significant amount of power, either through trade, violence, or some other form of diplomacy.

Of these options, only violence is unacceptable and only violence will bring out a state. To use violence requires a huge expenditure of private resources and maintaining the state will be difficult because people will not be indoctrinated into accepting it's legitimacy.

This institution may now be able to exert greater influence over the other institutions around it. Give it enough time, and enough support from the people around it, and a new state rises, albeit in a different form.


This isn't inevitable. Even if it were, it's not an argument against anarchy. All people eventually die, but that's not an argument against being healthy.

Anarchy is not a way of running things.. It is an ideal where one institution doesn't gain enough coercive power to screw everything up.


I agree with this, though I would prefer no coercive power of course. However, that seems to undermine your claim that the a state society can also be anarchistic since there IS such an organization.

The problem is this.. You give everyone freedom, and people will take away each others freedom. You enforce equality, then people aren't truly free.


We don't give people freedom, people are born free and their freedom can only be limited by others through force. We don't give people equality and we don't think equality is possible or desirable. Even if people use their "freedom" (this isn't a legitimate exercise of rights) to violate the rights of others, that is not an argument for violating their rights preemptively.

An-cap is like the former, an-soc is like the later.


I have defended an-cap thoroughly, and I think many formers of an-soc are superior to the status quo (though I might accept a minimal state a la Nozick as an alternative).

They are both pretty much amount to about the same thing.


I think the differences are minimal and often amount to predictions on how a free society would be run. There are some disagreements on economics and property rights, and I believe the an-cap position is far superior.

The closest you can come to being absolutely free is getting your head on straight.


Not having people steal from me and force me to do things under the pretense of legitimacy would be cool.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:33:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:37:43 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
A newb in politics here and I'd like to start with anarchism. So, does anyone have good links for me? Opinions on it?

Contrary to what you may have concluded from this site:

1. Anarchism is not a mainstream political position. Anarchists do not normally dominate political discourse. Weird, I know.

2. Anarcho-capitalism is not the mainstream form of anarchism. Most anarchists are leftist anarchists (actually, most anarchists are anti-establishment idiots who have never read a book, like the people CosmicAlfonso was criticizing).
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:38:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In the end, it will be anarchism. The only question is when and how. Just as fuedal Europe seems kind of silly to us now, information-age America will seem equally as brutal and archaic.
kfc
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:20:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:05:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't really understand anarchism, but I feel the need to voice my opinion on it anyway.

Okay.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:47:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:20:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:05:21 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I don't really understand anarchism, but I feel the need to voice my opinion on it anyway.

Okay.

yer so clever, haha, i bet u get all da poosie
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:28:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Anarchy" comes from the Greek root "anarchia", which is to say "without ruler".

There are several ways this can be interpreted.

In an ideological sense, some say it is the lack of a monopoly on force, some say it is the absence of hierarchy, others say it is the abolition of violence, and there are others still.

Anarchy may also be taken other ways, such as philosophically. Philosophical Anarchism is often described as a mind-set devoid of dogma, while it can also simply refer to someone who is "free-spirited".

Back to ideology, since I assume that is what you mean.

If one is to define Anarchism as "a lack of a monopoly on force(i.e. a state)" then in many ways they have no discernible difference with Panarchism, the idea that one should pick their government. Many Anarchists with this position are "Anarcho-Capitalists", the idea that Anarchism is the full application of a free-market where "private defense agencies" take the place of governments and compete openly on the market. Virtually all who call themselves Anarchists agree that there should not be a monopoly on force, so this is perhaps the most broad definition for Anarchism.

Anarchists who define Anarchism as "the abolition of hierarchy" are likely to be "Anarcho-Communists", the idea that not only should government be abolished in-order to constitute "without ruler" but all institutions of authority, including private property. Anarcho-Communists argue that, historically and theoretically, all major forms of violence, including government, have been the product of inegalitarian social institutions like private property and that government becomes obsolete with it abolished.

Anarchists who define Anarchism as "the abolition of violence" very across the spectrum of Anarchists in whether they support Capitalism or not. This group, however, would disagree with with many Anarcho-Capitalists in the necessity of private defense agencies. They would argue that any group trying to enforce a law, regardless of whether that group is being payed voluntarily to do so, still constitutes a government.

This is a very inexhaustive overview.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:33:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:56:11 AM, Sieben wrote:
It doesn't matter that 99.99% of states are barbaric failures because those are not the kind of states I advocate. I only advocate good states.

It doesn't matter that 99.99% of Anarchic communities are epic failures because those are not the kind of Anarchic communities that I advocate. I only advocate good Anarchic communities.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:38:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 12:33:33 AM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 4/29/2011 9:56:11 AM, Sieben wrote:
It doesn't matter that 99.99% of states are barbaric failures because those are not the kind of states I advocate. I only advocate good states.

Hey its this guy! He's super insightful and always understand the things you try to explain to him! Why don't we ask him what the most convenient route to convenience is? What is convenient today TAA?

*barf*

I think from the fact that I don't cop out of islamic-genital-mutilating Somalia is proof that I don't pick Utopia as my starting point. You're just ticked off that I parodied your worldview so well.

And I don't want anarchy. I want a society where I'm king and I can do whatever I want. What I defend is that anarchism is the only coherent political philosophy. Whether or not anyone cares depends on if we prefer discourse to barbarism.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:40:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 12:28:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"the abolition of hierarchy"

Lol at anyone who calls for the abolition of hierarchy when language is hierarchical. Performative contradiction fail.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:52:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 12:40:23 AM, Grape wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:28:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"the abolition of hierarchy"

Lol at anyone who calls for the abolition of hierarchy when language is hierarchical. Performative contradiction fail.

How is that, sir?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:53:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think most people would prefer the security of the state rather than the terror of anarchy. True, I recognize the tyranny of the state, but I'd rather have a government that has a monopoly on force rather than everyone having the ability to enact force on me.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:55:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
in any case, i think there's ways to create a good government, or at the very least a better government. Democracy is a complete epic fail. Hong Kong is known to take government corruption very seriously.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:59:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Notable Ancap or semi-Ancap societies include: the 19th century American West, present day Somalia and, most notably, Ancient Ireland.

Notable Ancom or semi-Ancom societies include: 1871 Paris, 1936-1939 Catalonia and, most notably, many hunter-gatherer societies.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 1:12:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 12:52:13 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:40:23 AM, Grape wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:28:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"the abolition of hierarchy"

Lol at anyone who calls for the abolition of hierarchy when language is hierarchical. Performative contradiction fail.

How is that, sir?

I just said why. Language is hierarchical. The statement "Hierarchy should not exist" perpetuates hierarchy: of sentences over words and words over letters.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 1:21:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 1:12:35 AM, Grape wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:52:13 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:40:23 AM, Grape wrote:
At 4/30/2011 12:28:55 AM, FREEDO wrote:
"the abolition of hierarchy"

Lol at anyone who calls for the abolition of hierarchy when language is hierarchical. Performative contradiction fail.

How is that, sir?

I just said why. Language is hierarchical. The statement "Hierarchy should not exist" perpetuates hierarchy: of sentences over words and words over letters.

Forgive me. Not regularly do you see someone stretch their imagination that far to make an idea appear contradictory.

Obviously, whether a sentence takes precedent over a word or my hand over a pencil, has no ideological implications.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 1:28:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:37:43 AM, vardas0antras wrote:
A newb in politics here and I'd like to start with anarchism. So, does anyone have good links for me? Opinions on it?

I think Kleptin summed it up nicely with his washing machine analogy. Did you see that thread? I will try to find if you would like.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen