Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.


0 votes
As far as I understand, the ethics of anarchism rest upon self-ownership, possession and an opposition to hierarchy, is this correct?

Also, what is the definition of hierarchy in this context and what precisely is the difference between possession and private property?
by (150 points)
af, your "hard-on" for lantz has provided me many good laughs (in this thread and others). thanks!  you even make some good points along the way. ;-)
re: FA's post -- as i said to the activist who visited my reading group last week, i appreciate someone who has an anomalous-to-the-context position who's willing to stick around and argue out points. it's nice to have a determined leftist here to let us question them, for both whatever good *and* bad arguments they make, as well as the places where we're just on different planes...
and AF has also been great (if occasionally unintelligible to me) for being the most determined poster exploring the lantz questions.
Funky, I think you got me all wrong. I'm not lantz-normative at all. It's more general.  From an early age I've found I just start throbbing whenever I encounter foot-in-mouth syndrome...particularly when dressed up in condescension. mmm, mmm, mmmmmmm!
dot: "(if occasionally unintelligible to me)"

I do understand that my way of writing can come off as a bit esoteric and it may seem at first glance that I do so in order to obfuscate rather than to clarify. But, this isn't the case at all. I seek to use the language we speak to the fullest extent that I'm able, rather than being confined by it; rather than it using me.

By all means, if something I say seems obscure I will do my utmost to answer any questions you, or anyone, may have, particularly when posed sincerely. I'll do the same.
i appreciate that. it's actually a combination of not being interested in following the rabbit hole (gawd what a terrible mixed metaphor--yay!) of the philosophy and history of logic (et al) that you and lantz are having fun with (presumably) *and* not having a background on either of those things. it just makes the conversation between the two of you a specialized tangent--which is awesome, just not for me.

Please log in or register to answer this question.