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
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw(a)reactor-core.org
Webpage:
http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2