Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's ..

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

I really don't think this is the thread to be talking anarchist theory. Sonia, I hope you continue to keep tabs on FDR, it would be great to hear any other insights or thoughts you had about it. I think we all agree that keeping the pressure on FDR is a good tactic, even if we disagree on involving government.

Xeonious · Number of posts: 197 Registration date: 2008-08-06

Deep Purple wrote:

I really don't think this is the thread to be talking anarchist theory. Sonia, I hope you continue to keep tabs on FDR, it would be great to hear any other insights or thoughts you had about it. I think we all agree that keeping the pressure on FDR is a good tactic, even if we disagree on involving government.

Yes, that is true, this probably isnt the best place to be discussing anarchism.

Sonia Mansour Robaey · Number of posts: 24 Registration date: 2008-11-17

Some clarifications:
Social consensus is not govevernment, it is the pressure society can at one time put on government on a given matter. Also, laws are enforced by government but they are in no way the emanation of a top-down authority like government, they are the emanation of the people, the values and the debate in a liberal democracy. I agree that they are far from perfect, but they can be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------NonE, you are entitled to your thinking but you are wrong. I am not a dangerous person like stef, I have never publicised ideas of hate and irrational ideas. I am concerned by justice, not punitive justice (because anarchists see only this apsect of justice), but mainly distributive justice and natural justice, and fairness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep Purple, I agree with you. This must be our main goal and this is the end of my comments in this thread.

Xeonious · Number of posts: 197 Registration date: 2008-08-06

Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Some clarifications:
Social consensus is not govevernment, it is the pressure society can at one time put on government on a given matter. Also, laws are enforced by government but they are in no way the emanation of a top-down authority like government, they are the emanation of the people, the values and the debate in a liberal democracy. I agree that they are far from perfect, but they can be changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------NonE, you are entitled to your thinking but you are wrong. I am not a dangerous person like stef, I have never publicised ideas of hate and irrational ideas. I am concerned by justice, not punitive justice (because anarchists see only this apsect of justice), but mainly distributive justice and natural justice, and fairness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep Purple, I agree with you. This must be our main goal and this is the end of my comments in this thread.

Please do not make blanket statements about Anarchists, I do not only see the punitive aspect of justice and I'm very sure others feel the same.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

I see only the punitive side of the state. Justice is a whole other issue.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Xeonious wrote:

Please do not make blanket statements about Anarchists...

Ah, but you see, that is the point. Sonia appears to see people as part of a group, not individual beings with lives and desires and individual dignity. It is the group which matters. Not the individual.

Sonia wrote:

...they are the emanation of the people, the values and the debate in a liberal democracy.

(emphasis mine)

This is the core difference between Classical-Liberals/libertarians/anarchists and socialist/communists. A difference in opinion is seen differently depending upon one's world view. It is either an issue to be resolved and then let alone, or it is a reason to pass a law to corral all members of the tribe under the control of the winning party. Mob rule is another way of stating it.

Persuasion versus force. Confidence versus fear. Interestingly perhaps Stef and Sonia are coming from the same place, needing to lash out against "injustice" rather than to simply speak up against it and assert one's self confidently.

All of this is speculation on my part of course, but it is my speculation. I am currently still free to engage in (some) speculation. (Sadly, as I reflect upon it, much less free than I think I am, considering recent revelations of government surveillance of all telecommunications and internet traffic, and laws which void habeas corpus, etc.)

The thing that triggered my outrage in the first place is the danger such ideas have to my own life and thus my attempt, probably poorly executed, to challenge these ideas. For those not familiar with the current reality, Australia has recently passed laws which make the internet a police state in that country. ALL internet connections are subject to censorship and only approved destinations are allowed. Just like China. Fear mongering and the claim of protecting the innocent has given the excuse to the enactment of "Big Brother" in Australia as it pertains to free speech and research.

Seeking to engage the power of law to control what Stefan, and those who freely engage in conversation with him, can do in a public forum is frightening. Soon we may have internet "free speech zones" just like those chain-link-fenced areas devoted to dissent in the cities holding political conventions. I do not support such thinking.

If my standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of association is somehow troubling to Sonia then I suggest this is very important to point out. It was the issue that was first in the "Bill of Rights" afterall.

Remember, as Marc Stevens has so well pointed out, Law is Opinion backed by a Gun.

- NonE

Sonia Mansour Robaey · Number of posts: 24 Registration date: 2008-11-17

Xeonious,
I agree and I apologize but I was confused. Anarchists on this site don't seem to agree. There is very little similarity in thinking between you and NonE for example.

Xeonious · Number of posts: 197 Registration date: 2008-08-06

Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Xeonious,
I agree and I apologize but I was confused. Anarchists on this site don't seem to agree. There is very little similarity in thinking between you and NonE for example.

Perhaps in this thread maybe Very Happy

However, as far as the content of None's arguments I would say we do think similarly, even though we may have different opinions on when to talk about them Razz

. As far as my preference (and I'm not saying this is contrary to None), I prefer to understand your position before I attempt to respond which is why I asked for clarification. As I’m sure you very well know with your academic training in philosophy, it’s hard to discuss philosophy if one does not define terms.