Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 81 to 86 of 86

Thread: Nelson Mandela: The World Loses an Icon.

  1. #81
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Brandon wrote: View Post
    And to bring this back to Mandela, he refused to take that step.
    Right, so if you see a gang of theives robbing an inocent person, your "non violence" principle instructs you to walk right by, or sing kumbaya, or something.

    What particular act of violence did Mandela commit that you object to?

  2. #82
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Brandon wrote: View Post
    I think if you watch the presentation it talks about that.
    Feel free to put it in your own words,
    since I'm responding to your post, not the presentation.

  3. #83
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Brandon wrote: View Post
    I didn't accuse him of a specific act of violence. He refused to publicly reject it.
    So this defines his legacy to you? Not all the things he did do, and went through, but something he didn't do, actually, something he refused to say? Hmm.

    Also, you never answered the question about the robbery above. Please do.

  4. #84
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Brandon wrote: View Post
    BTW, "A just society will provide this." The state is not society. It's a corporation with a monopoly on the use of offensive violence in a given territory. If people need help, it must be given voluntarily, not through violence. And it doesn't matter if you agree with the means by which the state "helps" the needy (I would say subjugates them), because you have no choice but to participate. It is not compassionate to help people become dependent on the corporation called the state.
    Maybe I am oversimplifying your politics but in the absence of some form of "rules" how does anarchy which is the anti thesis of controls to make "the buses run on time" provide a solution of providing protection to us everyday schleps going about our mundane or exciting lives?

    Why does Stefan incessantly put down Mandela and glorify the pro apartheid govt/system by citing economic/socio statistics in favour of the latter. The validity of those pronouncements are unimportant to me. Mandela's cause was simple...removing the shackles of apartheid on his countrymen/women. If he/you are intellectually averse to forms of govt. and laws in general why the clear preference of the racist and violent govt. ? Or did I miss something. I did not miss his disdain for colonialism.

    I assume you walk amongst us as a Canadian. How do you square your politics while you continue to benefit from some of the social benefits this country provides? Maybe you'll surprise me and volunteer that Stefan/you are independently resourceful, have rejected the Health care system and pay out of pocket for any medical attention you have or hope to receive in your life time. Just an example.

    In practical terms what you are calling for is a form of isolationism especially in the current climate of globalization (no fan here). Impractical and somewhat dangerous when one considers the communications interconnectivity. btw...while you provided a partial hats off to Aung San isnt she now part of the govt. of Myanmar? That must not go down well. Non violent but sits down with the jailers (on equal terms) to hopefully improve everyone's lot.
    Last edited by Bendit; Thu Dec 19th, 2013 at 05:55 PM. Reason: Removed comparison of Mandela & Aung San (last sentence).

  5. #85
    Raptors Republic Starter Quirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    316
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Bendit wrote: View Post
    Maybe I am oversimplifying your politics but in the absence of some form of "rules" how does anarchy which is the anti thesis of controls to make "the buses run on time" provide a solution of providing protection to us everyday schleps going about our mundane or exciting lives?
    I'm quite impressed with the overall political accumen this group has demonstrated in this thread. I truly wasn't expecting that. I was expecting the right libertarians, "market" anarchists to be able to do their usual bullshit baffles brains routine with more effect here, but no, you guys sent them packing quite effectively. Great!

    As for the above quote, Anarchism is not about no controls, it's about no rulers, and Anarchist (real Anarchists, not "Austrians," Rothbardians, Anar-caps, etc), have always talked about collectives and federations as ways to have basic rules and make the buses run on time, etc, in ways that are as voluntary and distributed as possible, and as inclusive and particpatory otherwise.

    Many where even somewhat positive about Republics, as in the kind of democracies typical of modern countries. The State they where fighting against was quite a different one, i.e, the France, Germany and Russia of Bakunin's time.

    "Liberty is so great a magician, endowed with so marvelous a power of productivity, that under the inspiration of this spirit alone, North America was able within less than a century to equal, and even surpass, the civilization of Europe." -- Bakunin.

    Anarchists want people to make rules and manage resources collectively, without property and without the State. "The State" is not meant to be understood as meaning the same thing as any Government, The State is to be understood in the sense of a fuedal state, an institution that demmands tribute and grants privilge, thereby creating classes.

    While formal aristocratic tites are not as much a feature of modern states, by enforcing property rights over the great inhereted fortunes, the function remains the same. Anarchist believe in either collective property or "usufruct" possesion, meaning that either your own something colletively, or if you own something individually than you must be the one that uses it and posseses it.

    This "non violence" stuff is just bullshit from the "right libertarian" collection of talking points, and it just provides a way to justify ignoring domination and exploitation and condeming those that stand up to it, as we've seen above. A position that can only be held by the already privildged,

    Best,
    Last edited by Quirk; Fri Dec 20th, 2013 at 04:20 AM.

  6. Like Joey liked this post
  7. #86
    Raptors Republic Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,944
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    @Quirk,

    Thanks for the post/reply...it was very informative.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •