From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Ideality vs. Reality (Was: Anarchy in Somalia)
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:27:03 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan27171843@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.222751.21503@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
><   Here's my train of thought:
>
><  3. Therefore, for anarchy to work, people have to change.
><   IMHO, the best way for them to change is to really think about what they
><   are doing to themselves and to each other, to really understand what
><   freedom means and to realise that they don't need a government to tell them
><   what to do.
> 
>	In other words, the day that "everyone" is of one mind,
>	things will be different.
>
>	"In the sweet, bye and bye"....I was unaware that anarchism
>	is a religion.
>
It's just as much a religion as democracy, communism, socialism, monarchism
or any other form of government---and just as likely to "work".
People can't be governed...but today's people can't govern themselves.
Damned if you do...
><   ><If you want realism, though, I admit, you'll have to try somewhere else.
><   >
><   >	Huh. These aren't just word games, folks, they are ideas
><   >	with consequences.
><   >
><   No, I was playing word games, actually.  That's all philosophy is.
><   "They're all we've got to go on."---Stoppard again.
>
>	Uh huh. Lenin wrote "just words". Mao spoke "just words".
>	A. Schickelgruber wrote "just words". 
>
Well, if you want to classify _my_ words with Lenin's, Mao's and
Shickelgruber's, I am indeed flattered.  But on the other hand, at least
with Lenin and Mao, they had people to force those words down other's
throats.  You can take or leave my words.

>	Sorry, ideas still have consequences.
>
Hopefully, ideas are not considered dangerous on their own.  That's the
basis for all kinds of censorship.  See above.

><   >	The absurd notion that humans are infinitely plastic and can be
><   >	"molded for their own good" into some sort of "New Human"
><   >	should, by now, be completely discredited. 
><   >
><   Where are these quotes coming from?  Not me, and it certainly doesn't sound
><   like an anarchist of any kind.
> 
>	Anytime someone begins to talk about how humanity "must
>	change", I check my wallet and my weapons; the former to
>	see if it's being picked and the latter for obvious reasons.
>
You didn't answer my questions.  My question was: You put "molded for
their own good" and "New Human" in quotes like they were from somewhere.
They weren't from me.  And when I said that humanity must change, I meant
that humanity must change _itself_.  Not 1 bit of humanity change other
bits of humanity.  That's stupid.  And speaking of which.

><  >	That it has not is an indictment of, among other things,
><   >	modern "education".
>
><   Huh?  Yoo callun me stoopid?  :-)
>
>	Well, if one is going to discuss what used to be called
>	"political economy" and not know history....there's a 
>	pitfall waiting which George Santayana already addressed
>	via epigram.
>
Oh, I know it.  Doomed to repeat, right?  Where, specifically, did I
show my alleged ignorance of history?

>
>	Although a cynic would respond, "The only thing we learn
>	from history is that humans learn nothing from history".

Neat!  I like it.

--
******************************************************************************
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the
 black flag and begin slitting throats."---------H. L. Mencken
Jason D. "corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Claims Full Responsibility
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy