|
posted by dennisn on November 27th, 2011 at 11:10PM
Why will you "probably never" read it? It's often ranked as the most influential book on many influential people's book lists.
|
posted by dsk on November 27th, 2011 at 11:21PM
Also the author is quite intelligent:
"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."
"Anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up."
|
posted by dennisn on November 27th, 2011 at 11:28PM
Now, if only her readers were, there may yet be hope for the future.
"Anarchy" is not "a society without organization" -- it is a society without *violently imposed organization*. Huge difference. Massive misunderstanding, or fail. (A voluntarily organized society would have their own protection agencies to guard against potential criminals.)
Nor is "anarchy" in any way a lack of "objective laws" -- "objective law" is essentially ethics, which is universal and very much objective.
Nor would "anarchy" lack arbiters -- private arbitration services. Another massive fail. She's not perfect, you know?
Nor is "anarchy" (anarcho-capitalism) in any way a collectivist ideology. It is as individualist as they get.
|
posted by dsk on November 27th, 2011 at 11:34PM
Quiet scum. Know your place.
I joke, but the description is apt. Very fitting.
|
|
|
|
