Those car windows represent work and labor on someones part, whether the builder, or someone who traded their labor for those car windows. To destroy those windows is to rob someone of their labor. Anarchists clearly frown on robbery, as it is a form of coercion.
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.
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.
You can label the thought processes of the gang whatever you like, I really don't care. Call them "anarcho-capitalists" or call them "crypto-facists". The point is that without some moral absolutes, Ed and the gang are on equal moral ground.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2
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
Jonathan Walther wrote:
Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private hands invariably involves coercion.
(Actually, this statement is a category error.) But why in the world are we talking about it here? Even the post that you responded to didn't mention capitalism, or anarcho-capitalists, or anything like that. Is this some other discussion, drifted over from [[Anarchism]] or something? Is that why TMC is trying to score rhetorical points over nobody?
-- Toby
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:40:19PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
Capitalists are never anarchists; the accumulation of wealth in private hands invariably involves coercion.
(Actually, this statement is a category error.) But why in the world are we talking about it here? Even the post that you responded to didn't mention capitalism, or anarcho-capitalists, or anything like that. Is this some other discussion, drifted over from [[Anarchism]] or something? Is that why TMC is trying to score rhetorical points over nobody?
There was a mention of anarcho-capitalism in the post I replied to, but I edited it out when I replied. My bad. Anarchism isn't the same thing as believing in no government; that is a part of it, but there is a whole lot more to it. Right now I am working on a definition of Anarchism that doesn't use the words "government" or "property" at all.
Jonathan
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org