From: sanderso@nyx.cs.du.edu (Borogove)
Subject: Re: hmmmm...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:33:48 GMT

 glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
 

>>should be the credo of the anarchist : "use only the force that is
>>necessary"
>Sufficient and Necessary?  Sufficient for what?  The death of freedom?

    Ah-ah, don't go putting words into my mouth. IMO, in this case, it is
necessary to *defend* your freedom. If, as you claim, freedom is an
individual thought-thing, then surely if someone attacks you, then your
freedom is worth more than their freedom to attack you.

>Force is by nature UNnecessary.
 
   Hmm. Could do with some elaborating, as I can't agree with that as it
stands. Like it or not, in the real world, force will sometimes be
necessary. Incidentally, do you value animal freedom equally? If so, if
a tiger attacked you, would you let it savage you?

>>>I value one thing and one thing alone: love.   I should hope that
>>>you would agree that I cannot use violence or coercion to get someone
>>>to love me.  Since violence and coercion is not useful for the only
>>>thing I value, it is not useful for me PERIOD.
>>You are assuming that your anarchist society would exist in a vacuum,
>>and there would never be contact with non-anarchistic societies.
> 
>I make no such assumption.  We are coming from two extremely different
>perspectives.  It is clear that you do not understand at all where
>I am coming from.  I am thinking things that you consider to be
>unthinkable.
 
    I may come from the backwoods, but I ain't stupid. Run your
persepective by me again, will you (by email if you prefer). What are
you thinking that is so incredible (IRONY) that my poor little
straight-jacketed brain cannot contemplate it?

 
>Yeah sure bro, war is peace, freedom is slavery, love is hate, etc.

   No, the world is not black-and-white. Things will never be that simple.
War *is* different from self-defence. I defend myself. I am never the agressor.
I use only the force necessary to stop the attacker attacking me, and no more.


 
>Freedom is not something one CAN defend.  You either are aware of
>the fact that you are free, or you delude yourself into thinking
>that you are not.

and

>>So you have no right to freedom, yes?
>Correct.  I have no "right" to anything.  Freedom isn't a right.  It's
>a state of mind.
 
    Following this line of argument to its logical conclusion, you would
say (as many before you have said) that even if you are kidnapped,
beaten and made into a slave, you are still free, because in your mind
you *believe* you are free. Well, that doesn't, and never has worked for
me. I do not live in the abstract world of the mind, I live in *this*
world. It all comes down to a question of power-belief. I may believe I
am free, but they have kidnapped me and have me at their mercy. They do
not believe I am free, and they have more power to enforce their beliefs
than I do. Hence I can believe I am free all I like, they have still
stripped me of my freedom. 
    It is this situation that my credo of 'necessary force' is designed
to avoid. You cannot have freedom where there is power-imbalance, where
one person can successfully exert power over another. If someone tries
that with me, I try to exert an equal yet opposite power, cancelling out
their attempt, and my freedom is maintained. (Oh no, I've gone all
abstract).


>Eww, another poor sod lambasting himself with fault and blame.  Cut
>yourself some slack, eh.   Ya can't change the past nor predict
>the future, forget 'em.  Just be true to yourself.  No regrets.
 
   And who do *you* blame when you screw up, then? Also, you can't with 
any certainty say that we can't predict the future. On a lower level, I know
that if I point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, *I* will have killed
them. I cannot use the defense that 'I didn't know that would happen'.

    Oh, and incidentally...I am. *8-)
 

>look at it as the philosophy of No Fear.  It's also the philosophy of
>No anger.  No blame, and No fault.   But be careful, I'm not saying

No humanity. Our fear warns us of danger. Our anger gives us our
passion. Blame stops us from performing the same stupid cock-up again.
But to continue...
 
>shit happens, be apathetic.  There is a vital passion inside of
>each of us that we have to be true to, and we have to accept the
>consequences of doing this.
 
  How come we argue like cat and dog all the way through, then suddenly
we agree?


 
>Anarchy is a state of mind, an individual approach to reality.  An
>anarchist society would be a nice thing, but why wait, when you can
>have it all for yourself right now?
 
   Again, see my above point about abstract freedom. You know for a fact
that you cannot have it all now.

>Stephen (Think Free Or Die).
>Please elaborate on Think Free Or Die.

   What do you want to know about it? 8) Actually, though, this is
somewhere where we agree (sort of) again. No matter what they do to me,
I will never let them stop me thinking free. The difference between us
is, I don't think that's enough.


 Stephen (LIVE Free or Die).
--
//csxsja@scs.leeds.ac.uk//| "Wait a minute! Isn't anyone
//sanderso@nyx.cs.du.edu//|  here a real sheep?"
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy