[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sandy Sandfort <[email protected]> writes:
> Well, I'm an anarchist...
...a reputation you have earned well in your postings to this list,
which is why your answers matter to me.
> and I would have no *philosophical* problem with pursuing redress in
> the king's court.
How could you do this, without incurring cognitive dissonance?
> I would use [government] in the same way I would use an oncoming
> truck; if someone were trying to mug me, I would consider pushing them
> in front of the truck.
Government differs from the oncoming truck in that its power comes from
its constituency of willing clients generating a demand for its
services. Granted, withdrawing your demand will hardly affect that
power, because the other hundred million constituents will still be
pressing their demands.
But how do you deflect accusations of inconsistency and hypocrisy? Our
archist adversaries use such charges to deflate anarchist arguments.
I don't understand and am increasingly unable to abide the inconsistent
and hypocritical attitude of many of my anarchist friends who decry
government while at the same time willfully patronizing it, even when
they have reasonable alternatives. You have apparently accommodated
yourself to this inconsistency. How?
> Now ask me if I would have any philosophical objection to taking welfare.
Would you have any philosophical objection to taking welfare?
This may be drifting away from the charter of cypherpunks, but I'll bet
I'm not alone among the anarchists here in wondering how you would
answer these questions.
John E. Kreznar | Relations among people to be by
[email protected] | mutual consent, or not at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----