Daily Anarchist Forum
July 04, 2022, 10:36:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Creationism on: September 02, 2012, 10:55:56 PM
Quote
I question your use of the term "fraud".

I agree that it is questionable.

However, in some sense, school sells a product (in that case, knowledge). In that case, if they sell you something based on false facts, can this be considered, somehow, like lying when somebody try to sell a product?

Of course, in saying this, I "impose" my own vision of the world, my own theories of the world, and so on.

 
Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=5.


I agree. Similarly, I have the right to tell people that cigarettes are good for health. But do I have the right to sell cigarettes and saying that there is clear evidence that cigarettes are good for health to those who buy the product ?

I was taught young earth creationism by my parents and church.   If possible, they would have sent me to a christian school.  If the choice is public schools versus private, indoctrination is inevitable.  I ended up questioning both of my faiths, political and religious in the end, despite indoctrination.  So, I wouldn't dare initiate force for a bunch of creationists teaching their kids whatever nonsense they want because the kids can still grow up and choose for themselves what to believe, like I did.  Violence used to stop that could lead to unknown consequences and perhaps drive them further towards the nonsense of their parents. 

Be careful what violence you advocate for, because once unleashed can cause uncontrollable consequences.


Interesting point of view.

But since you are an anarchist, do you think it is possible that it was your personality. In other words, is it possible that most childrens who are raised in that type of environment will not been able to get out of it? Just take an easy example; statist lol!

2  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Creationism on: September 02, 2012, 11:08:06 AM
I have no problem with people teaching creationism, to their young or otherwise. I mean, what's the alternative? Violence?

That was my first impression too but

You might want to define "ok with that".  

My first reaction is that I would probably not use violence to stop them (however I might use shunning, education, etc.).   Alricaus asked specifically about individuals so I perhaps should stop here.  However Seth King extended the example to parent/children. So...

But now that I stop to think about it I have to wonder about the principle "Do not initiate force OR fraud".  If I interpret that statement correctly I can use force (or fraud I suppose) as a defensive mechanism against those that initiate.  Additionally I am justified in extending this shield to my neighbors, especially those that have no power to defend themselves.  So in theory if a person initiates a fraud against a child I am ethically justified (and maybe morally compelled?) to intervene.  

Does this principle change just because there is a parent/child relationship?  Can/should I intervene to stop a big person from hitting a small person?  From lying to them?  I don't know.


that was my second thought!

HOwever, I am a little bit confused about it.  You know, science has not be neutral in any sence. Just look, for example, the medicalization of homosexuality which was based on cultural stereotype. Science itself, is an institution of power, while maybe not as religious one. Another example would be what it is called (I don't remember the name in English), but it is a technic that consist of creating, for example, mental health problem, so one can sell drugs to "cure" this so-called mental health.

EDIT: And, by the way, when I said "ok with that", I mean should we stop it by other means than discussion, showing results from science, etc.
3  General Category / General Discussion / Creationism on: September 01, 2012, 11:57:41 PM
Hi there,

I posted a similar question in another forum, but I want to ask it here too. Since it was on a more leftist website than here, I will adapt my question slightly.

If a group of individuals want to learn creationism at school and that multiple conditions are met (e.g. they are ready to pay for it, a teacher wants, without coercion, to teach them creationism, they do not force other to pay for it, etc.), will you be ok with that?

I donít say more for now; I want to hear your thoughts on that first, and I will respond after.

Alricaus
4  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Much many some research ! on: July 09, 2012, 02:27:31 PM
Quote
Research" is uncountable, but studies are countable. So maybe that would be a suitable substitute for you.

The problem is that I used the term study too often. In French, while we can use the term research as a uncountable noun, it's, most of the time, used as a countable noun (exactly as study/studies). 

It's strange to see how different languages perceive things differently!

Still, thank for your answer!

5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Much many some research ! on: July 08, 2012, 11:57:30 PM
Thank  to both of you!!
6  General Category / General Discussion / Much many some research ! on: July 08, 2012, 10:11:17 PM
Hi there,

I have a question about something that has nothing to do with politic, anarchism or social issues; it is about English.

Maybe some of you know that I am not a English speaker (I am a French Canadian). Presently, I am working on a article that I want to publish (in English), and I need your help!

Somebody told me that, in English, the term research is considered as an uncountable noun. It is hard to understand for me, since it's a countable noun in French. So, I know that we have to say :

Much research has revealed and not many research have revealed

However, I don't know if we can say, for example :

Plentiful of research has
Some research has
Numerous research has
A research has
Very little research has
Recent research has

Thank you!



7  Videos / Anarcho-Capitalist Videos / Left-Libertarian on: May 22, 2012, 02:09:38 AM
I think that I found some answers about my questions that I had on the topic    
anarcho-capitalism and left values. I put the video here

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4hjO1ak4_M</a>

What you think about it ?
8  General Category / General Discussion / Re: anarcho-capitalism and left values on: May 20, 2012, 12:22:31 AM
Quote
Kevin Carson and Gary Chartier

Ya I know them a little bit, but I thought that they were more mutualism. No ?

Quote
I don't think material equality is ever going to be perfect. I think it will still be bell-shaped. But my understanding of free-market economics leads me to believe that with unlimited competition, profits tend towards zero. This is because people can always undercut you.

If this is the case than it seems to me that an entire economy could function quite well and still be more or less profitless. In this case, owners of companies may very well make as much as their janitors. People would sort of fit into their natural place based on their preferences and abilities, but not necessarily be any richer for it.

I know that sounds whackadoodle, and I'm not saying I fully believe it, but it wouldn't surprise me if that's how it ended up.

Interesting , but, finally, I think that  my point was not only about equality. Iíll give you an example, namely, feminism.

There are a lot of school of feminism (fist waves, second waves, and so forth). One of the feministís schools is libertarian feminism (called Ifeminism). A lot of contemporary feminist (associated with the left), believed in social constructionism (namely, that reality is socially constructed). Therefore, they believed that gender role and sexual orientation are the product of society, and that they do not possess any fundamental nature. On the contrary, Ifeminism believed more in essentialism, i.e. that gender (male and female) and sexual orientation (homosexual, heterosexual and, sometime, bisexual) possess some fundamental characteristics. I know that some free-market anarchist associated with the left believed, somehow, in social constructionism (whether in his hard form (everything is social) or mild form (that social has a great importance, while recognized the role of genetic and biology).

Without making a debate on whether social constructivism or essentialism is true, why Ifeminsim do not believed in social constructionism? Or, conversely, why the left believed in social constructionism? Because it has the name social? My question is somehow more fundamental. Is there some anarcho-capitalism that are engaged in the same reflection (I thing the better word would be way of living) that leftish (more anarchist leftish).  Itís hard for me to ask my question clearly, but is there some anarcho-capitalist that goes beyond the reflection of economic and morality, and thinks about the problem of gender, sexual orientation (I thank a lot of these topics since I reading a lot in the subject right now, and, generally, the libertarian feminism are quite ęconservativeĽ on that topic) and so forth in a more non-traditional way.

It always shock me how, for example, free-market anarchist that associated more with the right believed in traditional way of thinking gender and sexual orientation (while they can be right, my point is that they defended this position in a quite blind manner), while those who believed in free-market anarchist but associated with the left think gender and sexual orientation in a more social constructionism point of view (while they can be right, my point is that they defended this position in a quite blind manner). Or, why does anarcho-Queer theory only associated with the left?

I donít even know if I asking a question here. Itís just something that I find somehow strange Ö Personally, while I am not necessarily a social constructionism, I am open to this idea, try to understand it, and opposed quite logical arguments to it (and not political one, like itís done by Ifemnism). By the same token, I do not necessarily believed in essentialism, but I am open to this idea, try to understand it, and opposed quite logical arguments to it (and not political one, like itís done by gender feminism (the left one!))
9  General Category / General Discussion / anarcho-capitalism and left values on: May 15, 2012, 08:15:31 PM
Hi there,

There is some things that bothering me at the moment about anarcho-capitalism. I tried to find answers elsewhere, without success, so I decided to come here.

One thing that I really like about anarcho-capitalism, is the fact that this system enable all other system within it. Itís like a meta-system that let people decide what fit the best their values. After having talk a lot with some real anarcho-capitalist and libertarian (I said real because I realized that some libertarian and anarcho-capitalist (more libertarian I would say) use the free-market rhetoric to legitimated some form of inequity that we lived, without considering the fact that Ö we donít have a free-market!!) are more conservative in their ęperfect worldĽ that they would like to achieve.

Personally, since I came more from the left, I still have the ęleftishĽ values. For example, in my perfect world, they would be more equality (in material terms), smaller business, more control by the worker over production, more green policies, emancipation of GLBTQ cheap university, and so fourth.  These are examples, but I could follow. Naturally, I donít want to attain these elements by coercion; I would like to convince (or to boycott institution that goes against my values) people adopting way of living, or, alternatively, to build this society with people that have the same beliefs.

Furthermore, I think that I am more willing to ally with left-libertarian to achieve the end of the state comparatively to other anarcho-capitalist.  

I know that some anarcho-capitalists share these beliefs, but, maybe because a lot associated themselves with the right, it seems that we are quite outnumbered. I just want to know if (1) some anarcho-capitalist shares my views about the perfect world (or you know Ö that have similar view), and, if not (2) if you know some for of anarchy that hold the structure of anarcho-capitalism, but that share more a leftish view of what society should be attain.

If I can sum up, I would say that I fear that many anarcho-capitalist share with me the way that society should work, but not what outcomes should be achieve.  

I just want to tell that I used the term left in his common sense, since I do believe that, in some way, anarcho-capitalism is the leftish political philosophy that I know since it is the system that require coercion the less, and consequently, that require the state the less.

Thank
10  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Social science on: May 07, 2012, 11:39:35 PM
Hi there,

It makes a long time I havenít posted something here.

I was wondering about how social sciences will be found in an anarcho-capitalist society.

For some sciences (for example, pharmacology), there is no doubt that somebody will be interested by founding some projects. But isnít clear for me how, for example, projects on domestic violence (or on a plentiful of subjects) will found  their money. I thought of charity (of course!), but Iím worried about whether this will be enough. Naturally, I donít want to force anyone to do it.

So, I guess my question is whether you think that  social science projects will be able to get enough money to sustain all (of course, maybe not all the projects Ö but you know, if enough to have some research program) the research that are done in this domain.
 Thank
11  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Religion, Anarchism, and Collectivism ... on: March 01, 2012, 08:15:30 PM
Hi there,

It's make a while since my last post (to busy right now ...).


Quote
I don't entirely agree. The truth is that if you abstract far enough, then market anarchists endorse violence as well. Property rights are "enforced through the barrel of a gun." If you don't accept property rights, then any attempt to use violence in defense of them is seen as aggression. Likewise, if you do accept property rights, then their efforts to steal from us are seen as aggression.

Therefore, the violence argument fails. The only way we can really argue with them is to discuss the merits of a free market system. State up front what your values are, and why market anarchism achieves them.

^I believe this is the most important recent change in my own intellectual development.

Completely agree with you on that!!! It reminded me somehow the debate I had concerning the notion of freedom.

However, giving the ''moral nature'' of a lot of political arguments, It's my guess that this argument will not be very popular  Angry
12  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarchist survey on: January 06, 2012, 08:21:46 PM
Hi there,

I want to continue a little bit on this post. I found a very interesting article made by a social psychologist.  He tried to analyse personality traits of liberal (modern liberal), conservative and libertarian.

This part of the study is essentially on libertarian. Itís very interesting because it took back the distinction between logic and emotion made by Eddyk.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian

It reading this, I realised how itís not necessarily a distinction between social and natural science. Even in social science, there are some profession that will be more Ďappropriateí and Ďprototypicalí for a libertarian.

Just think of those who make research in psychology. While there are in social science, they are a lot more rational than clinical psychologist. A good example where social scientist can be rational and logic! There are, in a certain way, as scientist as natural scientist if they use rational and logic arguments. Even between clinical psychologists there is some clear distinction between some Ďschools of thinkingí (for example, behaviorism vs psychoanalysis).

What I am trying to say is that libertarian is a way of thinking that can be hold in social science. However, it'll have consequence on how to think social science.
13  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Anarchist survey on: December 24, 2011, 04:56:09 PM
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by programs. But I do find this statistic incredibly interesting: ~48% of 'anarchists' at least sometimes feel closer to Marxists than other types of anarchists. Telling.

Well, I don't know exactly how call it in English, but I mean : psychology, economy, law, ect.

Like I told, it was quite biased. I only put the link since it is in reading this that I think about the questions I asked.
14  General Category / General Discussion / Anarchist survey on: December 24, 2011, 02:57:56 PM
Hi there,

I found an interesting survey on internet about anarchist. Itís interesting since they include anarcho-capitalist in the survey, something making distinction between this type of anarchy and others, something not. Of course, itís a little biased. You can see it by the fact that they wrote Ďanarchoí-capitalism rather that anarcho-capitalism.  http://www.anarchistsurvey.com/results/

However, my point here is not about the survey per see (you can look at it if you want), but more about demographic data of anarcho-capitalism.

In the survey, they asked participants their profession. One of the responses was student (or education, I donít remember). However, they didnít ask which program the students were.

So, thatís my questions.
1-   Do you think there is a link between the type of program we chose and anarcho-capitalism?
2-   If yes, which programs you think are more selected by anarcho-capitalist?
15  General Category / General Discussion / Re: contradiction in freedom on: December 21, 2011, 10:42:52 PM
I will explain (again Ö) that I do not say that I believe in that or not. Personally, I donít fight for freedom and liberty per see; I just want to find the best system. For me, the very notion of freedom and liberty is somehow irrelevant.

I tried to explain that every form of anarchy have there own definition of freedom and I find that they are all right and wrong at the same time. The only thing I am doing is showing example of interpretation of freedom. Like I told before, my position is that liberty has to be structure and somehow impose, precisely because the humans donít agree on what is and what is not freedom.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!