On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 04:28:55PM -0800, Throbbing Monster Cock wrote:
This is not a debate on the flavors of anarchism, but an example illustrating that the gang's desire to smash windows is objectively equal to Ed's desire to leave them intact.
And? Mere desire has nothing to do with moral absolutes.
If it makes you feel any better, the gang considers the intact windshields to be the "means of production" through which broken windshields are produced. Because the social class of "car owners" cannot use their ownership of these means of production to exert control over the gang, it is necessary for the gang to take "possession" of the windshields while they put they to the use of being smashed.
If the cars were being used as instruments of coercion and oppression, then the gang would be justified in destroying them. But you never specified that when you first stated the example.
The point is that without some moral absolutes, Ed and the gang are on equal moral ground.
What makes you think anarchists don't have morals?
Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private hands invariably involves coercion.
Jonathan