Comments

1

Mance wrote

There are situations where I would use violence, but they are extremely rare. If I saw a woman getting raped, I would use violence to end the rape. If someone was abusing children, I would use violence to stop the abuse. ((but)) I would not use violence to stop a speech by someone I disagreed with, no matter how vile their speech. ((because)) I believe that it does no good to defeat fascists, only to replace them with your own fascist behaviour,

3

Mance wrote

I think you define your friends as people you enjoy spending time with. If you do not enjoy spending your time with a person, then I don't think that they are your friend. Friends come and go over time.

1

Mance wrote

Your probably right about that, but it could happen. Imagine this: Spain arrests Catalan's police chief (which they have threatened to do). Catalan's locals resist forcibly (which is not improbable). Shots get fired, things get out of hand. I agree it's unlikely.......but wars have started over less.

-2

Mance wrote

The hospitals wouldn't disappear, at least not initially. They would decay over time and become gradually unusable, without planned maintenance, supply and upkeep. Nothing would prevent anarchists from keeping a hospital, but they (being anarchists, eschewing central planning and organizing) would do it in a random, haphazard way, which would be useless.

And it's not just hospitals. Any kind of infrastructure that requires foresight and planning would gradually fall apart under anarchists. Sewer systems, highways, the internet.....all would continue to work for awhile, then gradually fall apart. in 30 years we would be back to medieval times.

-2

Mance wrote

Aye, I know what a book is. I read lots a stuff without a stranger telling me at what pace to read at. But even if I somehow manage to teach myself to be a medical professional just my reading books myself, it would be pretty useless, because without a hospital, all the sophisticated equipment, and the logistical supply chain required to keep a hospital constantly supplied. But hey, good luck in your anarchist utopia with self-taught health professionals.

-4

Mance wrote

An anarchist does not have the ability to produce the sophisticated education, regulation, and taxation systems required to create a sophisticated health system. I care deeply for my neighbour: if he breaks his arm or develops lung cancer I can't help him.

0

Mance wrote

No. If people want to charge people to give them a lift, the government should stay out of the way. If I give my buddy a lift and he gives me $5 for gas money, what right does the government have to get involved? Put an app in front of it and thats uber.

-3

Mance wrote

True, racist speech is not progressive. The question is who gets to decide if speech is racist or not? It might not be obvious. If I said that I was going to ignore aboriginal treaty rights, someone might call me racist. But I might say that having different laws for aboriginal vs european peoples, based on who their parents were, is racist. Some people tie religion and race together......if I criticize some Islamic practices (say female genital mutilation),,,,some people might call that racist. Some might not. The problem with limiting speech is that we don't have some all wise all knowing being that can decide what is racist and what is not. Some people use "that's racist" as a generic shut down move when they feel that they are losing an argument. Unless someone is inciting violence against people, i.e. "kill all XXX", my preference is allow everyone to speak and let individuals make up their own mind on whether or not to believe or not believe.

-1

Mance wrote

Anarchism only works for the young, fit and strong. That disabled 20 year old guy in a wheel chair that needs traffic lights to work and be obeyed, accessible buildings and such..........unless your under 25 and healthy I can't imagine who would truly pick anarchism. there are no hospitals in anarchist societies.

1

Mance wrote

Yes, because if you look at the options: 1)Theocracy - I don't feel like be ruled by a central group of people trying to interpret the wishes of an allegedly super powerful being 2) Monarchy - Just because your mom or dad was a great rule, doesn't mean your not a twit. You don't give Wayne Gretzky's kids a big hockey contract because their dad was a superstar 3) Oligarchy - a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution - I think oligarchies can have some successes; I think you could argue that China is an oligarchy in practice. But I think over time the "small group of people" who rule would end up being "the people best at consolidating power" as opposed to "the best people at governing" 4) Democracy/Republic - I believe in the wisdom of the crowds. Since Democracy/Republic have the most people of all the options involved in decisions, I believe that over long periods of time it will be better, 5) Communism - good in theory, fails in practice. In theory "each according to their ability and need" sounds great. But to work, it requires a central body to re-distribute from those who can produce more to those who do less. And because "those who produce more" do not always want to have their surplus willingly taken away from them, the state ends up using force to do the re-distribution. All communist societies end up sliding toward dictatorships over time because of this. 6) Dictatorship - 1 guy ruling through muscle? Well, first time you get an idiot in that position the whole thing falls apart

2

Mance wrote

Absolutely. The speech you shut down might just be the advancement society is looking for. Once upon a time Gallileo's ideas about the universe were considered offensive, were against people religious beliefs.....what if the powers succeeded in stopping them? Darwin's ideas offended people religious sensibilities. In the 1800s in the US it would have been offensive in many areas to talk about equal rights for non-whites or women.