11–20 of 88 posts
Source: https://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-...
> Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination. If that sounds difficult to implement, I agree! I'm an anarchist because I think the principles so succinctly put are a good pole star for my personal life. At the scale of society I see Marxism as just as important. How to…
> Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination If you and I can interface “unmediated” and freely, and I decide to use that freedom to take your shit, you need a “coercive or alienating force” to correct the wrong. Controlling this force is the history of civilisation.
Of course we'd still have to come up with activities to occupy all the "guard dog" will-to-power types when they no longer had good excuse to brutalize unfortunates. My suggestion would be a new violent sport! Since physical fitness is on the wane, probably something incorporating motorized scooters?
I thought this article/transcript was of interest to hackernews in a large part due to one of the two authors being the author of the Open Whisper Systems Signal SMS app.
With all due respect, if this is the best the anarchists have (and this article is from a respected individual and is decently written), you're fucked. These critiques are not new or without response. The problem is, this is 1000+ words of arguments about human nature, special pleading, etc, with NO sources. They describe known phenomena like control of the agenda and never call it that, I'm not sure if that's becaus…
I very much enjoyed (and even laughed) reading your response. It’s very concerning to see people talk so positively about anarchy. Another word for anarchy is “nihilism”, which is its philosophical twin. Neither of these words are used a lot today, but “nihilism” you’ll see mentioned a lot in the build-up to WWII. Am currently reading the below book, which argues in its final chapter that a German invasion of Poland…
However I do see that exact sentiment expressed by many corporatists, who privilege corporations and their 'rights' above actual people and civil society. And especially from members of the far-right, who are all too willing to dehumanize "The Other" regardless of what rights and interests their declared enemies hold.
I don't necessarily think political anarchism is all that tenable in the modern world we inhabit built as it is on global commerce. In the limited places it is practiced today, it appears to only function in situations of survival and desperation where a group can be held together cohesively by shared interests and some sort of unifying identity, whether religious or ethnic.
With all due respect I would have liked if the hackernews moderators had kept my original headline "An Anarchist Critique of Democracy by Moxie Marlinspike (Signal SMS), Windy Hart" I thought this article/transcript was of interest to hackernews in a large part due to one of the two authors being the author of the Open Whisper Systems Signal SMS app.
> Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination. If that sounds difficult to implement, I agree! I'm an anarchist because I think the principles so succinctly put are a good pole star for my personal life. At the scale of society I see Marxism as just as important. How to…
I would even like to see a few thousand anarchists start their own society and try to put their theories into practice on an artificial island or something. Even if they all need to be rescued by UN forces at the end of the day, the experiment will provide the rest of humanity with valuable insights that philosophers and anthropologists can grapple with for decades to come.
For my taste, though, both anarchism and libertarianism seem to be based on an overly optimistic view of human nature. Maybe they'll become more realistic once we've either evolved or augmented ourselves to a much higher level of intelligence and conscience.
With all due respect, if this is the best the anarchists have (and this article is from a respected individual and is decently written), you're fucked. These critiques are not new or without response. The problem is, this is 1000+ words of arguments about human nature, special pleading, etc, with NO sources. They describe known phenomena like control of the agenda and never call it that, I'm not sure if that's becaus…
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Should we dismiss this statement as irrelevant since the authors did not cite any sources? In fact, they go further, they reject any arguments from authority and hold this statements as self-evident! They don't even cite Aristotle or other "scholars who study politics and democracies".
A political statement is not falsifiable. To a 1000+ essay saying "I think anarchy trumps democracy as a political system", dismissing it because they don't cite source is a completely meaningless attack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination If you and I can interface “unmediated” and freely, and I decide to use that freedom to take your shit, you need a “coercive or alienating force” to correct the wrong. Controlling this force is the history of civilisation.
That's true of Libertarianism as well.
To this end, Libertarianism sometimes seems to me like a weak or pragmatic form of anarchy.
With all due respect, if this is the best the anarchists have (and this article is from a respected individual and is decently written), you're fucked. These critiques are not new or without response. The problem is, this is 1000+ words of arguments about human nature, special pleading, etc, with NO sources. They describe known phenomena like control of the agenda and never call it that, I'm not sure if that's becaus…
Let's take another political document I selected at random. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Should we dismiss this statement as irrelevant since the authors did not cite any sources? In fact, they go further, they reject any arguments from…
A political statement is not falsifiable.
Political scientists do something like this every day.
I'm just saying if you want to do more than just philosophize, if you want to convince people, if you want systems of government to change, you've gotta up your game. You've got to at least acknowledge people who have already responded to your critiques already.
With all due respect, if this is the best the anarchists have (and this article is from a respected individual and is decently written), you're fucked. These critiques are not new or without response. The problem is, this is 1000+ words of arguments about human nature, special pleading, etc, with NO sources. They describe known phenomena like control of the agenda and never call it that, I'm not sure if that's becaus…
Let's take another political document I selected at random. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Should we dismiss this statement as irrelevant since the authors did not cite any sources? In fact, they go further, they reject any arguments from…
No they don't, they argue from the authority of a Creator.