> This latter bit is amusing, and I suspect Chuck made it in jest. But then
> again, perhaps not. Would you, Chuck, Anarchist Avenger, load up with
> supplies and weapons and slog through the caves of Afghanistan, going
> toe-to-toe with seasoned, brutal fighters? It wouldn't be the same as
> sitting in the middle of the street and having the cops drag you away. Do
> you even have military training? Know how to clean a rifle? Are you ready to
> blow some teenage fanatic's head off? Stick a knife in his neck? Are you
> ready to die or be tortured?
Shit, Dennis, I just *don't* know! The main solutions right now seem to be: a) support the U.S. attack on the Taliban; or b) stop the war.
Did I ever suggest that a group of anarchist avengers invade Afghanistan? No. This is a figment of Dennis' imagination. When I suggested the "Abraham Lincoln Brigade" idea, I was positing a non-statist alternative that is kind of like a U.N. intervention.
Ok, let me jest for a minute.
It's often been said byt critics of war that the guys who yell loudest about bombing another country are also the ones who won't do the actual fighting. So let's give a rifle to every middle class white guy in America who wants to nuke Afghanistan and drop them out of a plane over that country. We could also gather up everybody else in the world who wants to take on the Taliban or OBL and drop them off in Kabul. You know, football ratings would crash because all of these couch potatoes were on the ground in Afghanistan, but at least we'd be putting some motivated jerks on the ground.
It's really funny that Dennis should make fun of me for military fantasies that I don't hold. I don't know anybody who was killed in the 9/11 attacks, so I'm not motivated by revenge. I have no love for the Taliban or OBL, but I'd rather support alternatives to removing them from power than simply supporting the U.S. military intervention.
I am not the Anarchist Avenger because I simply feel no obligation to go after OBL and the Taliban.
> Like I said, this has to be a joke. Yet, Chuck sees anarchism has some kind
> of church or Holy Calling: "WWBD" -- What Would Bakunin Do? I mean, do you,
> as an anarchist, reject welfare to the poor because it comes from the state?
> I've met "anarchists" who do. What about the state enforcing civil rights
> laws? What about the state putting violent, racist criminals on trial?
> Should all this be handled by anarchist posses?
This is a straw man argument which misrepresents my views. I'm not surprised, since the only thing Dennis can send in response to my emails is cheap shots.
No, I don't reject welfare to the poor. Welfare is a disempowering system, but I certainly wouldn't pull this meager rug out from under people until a better system was in place. As for your other inane questions, I'll leave you to mull them over.
> Sadly, we don't live in an anarchist world (we don't even live in a Pokemon
> world, for if we did, we could call on Charizard or Mankey to take out the
> evildoers), though there are elements and aspects of the anarchist ideal
> that do exist in everyday life. But this ongoing thinking that you display
> here -- "Now how do I see this through anarchist eyes?" -- is really no
> different than any sectarian you can name. But then, that's beauty of
> anarchist thought: it covers a wide range of perspectives.
Are you arguing, Dennis, that we should all abandon looking at these questions through the lens of our principles? Should Nathan not make his analysis based on his liberalism? You know, I'm not one of those post-modern writers like you who inflate pop culture into some kind of pantheon of meaning. I have political beliefs and goals and experiences. It certainly would go against my goals to argue a statist solution to this dilemma, so instead I'm providing an alternative approach.
At least you bit.
Chuck0