Chuck0 writes:
> If you did something that I didn't like, I wouldn't attribute
it automatically to your buddhism.
Why not? I am not a part-time Buddhist. Buddhism is my operating system. I presume that anarchism is yours. Are you a part-time anarchist?
> We all try to practice what we preach, but anarchism is not a
code of utopian behavior and conduct.
What is it then? I read the infoshop info and it seems that there is a definite morality associated with anarchism. I would presume that someone who says he is an anarchist would subscribe to the morality of anarchism. If not, why claim the name of anarchist?
> Anarchists do try to live their beliefs, but I think that you should
cut us some slack. ;-)
Is there any point in having beliefs if one does not manifest them in actions? I don't cut anyone slack, myslef included. I am surprised that you, as a pragmatist, would make such a plea.
> These are silly questions. The use of violence is a constructive way to
> solve a problem.
We will have to disagree.
> If you use violence to stop a greater evil from happening, than isn't that
better than simply adhering to some purist idea of nonviolence and letting
something bad happen?
So then the end justifies the means? What if someone thought that killing a few hets was a lesser evil that could lead to the deterring of the greater evil of wide-ranging heterosexism. Would that be justified? Is there an absolute scale upon which greater and lesser evils can be measured?
> No, anarchist groups cannot provide any drugs at this time. This is an
unreasonable expectation of a movement which is few in numbers at this point.
So since anarchists cannot provide the drugs needed so that PWA's and PHIV's can survive, do you think it is moral to call for violence against the institutions which can provide these drugs without having viable alternatives in place?
> Besides, that misses the point of anarchism. We aren't positing ourselves
as the salvation of people. We do not seek to take over government.
I understand that. But to my eyes it is morally irresponsible to work for the destruction of a structure without having a substitute structure ready.
> Go check out that Science Commons link. That is something anarchistic
which I think answers your questions better.
I did. It is very sensible. But it evades the question of how the complex machinerty of drug testing, production and distribution can be achieved without government of some sort. I am all for the sharing of raw data and information, but all the research in the world is useless unless and until it is tranformed into practicable therapies that can be gotten to people with ease and consistency.
> Most anarchists, including myself, would vehemently disagree.
I know. As I said earlier, I consider it anarchism's greatest drawback.
> History shows that religion is a powerful force for ignorance, violence,
and many other problems.
Can you please show me how Buddhism fits into the above statement. Certainly Allen did not think so. How does the reign of Asoka fit in with this view?
> And there is no empirical evidence to support religious claims, especially all of that nonsense abot an "afterlife".
Buddhism is an empirically based religion. Also, there are some fascinating proofs of rebirth. Many are available on the internet.
> The chief difference between anarchists and non-anarchists is that
> anarchists
oppose the state. We favor direct action as one of many methods of
empowering
the individual.
But what if these empowered individuals decide that some formal structure is best for providing the complex needs of a complex populace?
> Individuals work together in cooperation, forming groups to do things,
such as a union or a food co-op or a drug-buying co-op.
That is fine. But how are they going to be able to research and produce the complex pharmaceuticals needed by PWA's and PHIV's. I certainly agree with drug-buying co-ops. But how would anarchists create the complex structures/machinery for researching/producing the needed drugs?
> To protect our identities from state repression. The police always
film everybody who attends any kind of protest.
They did it all the time with ACT UP, but we never masked up. Curious.
>As a form of leaderless resistance. Masks and black clothes encourage
egalitarianism among people in the bloc.
ACT UP was one of the most egalitarian movementts I have ever been part of. And we didn't need to hide behind masks. Again, curious.
> See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
I read the info on the site and it is basically Buddhism with some elements missing. Just one of many examples:
This is because of the social nature of humanity. The interactions between
individuals do develop into a social maxim which, according to Kropotkin,
can be summarised as "[i]s it useful to society? Then it is good. Is it
hurtful? Then it is bad." Which acts human beings think of as right or
wrong is not, however, unchanging and the "estimate of what is useful
or harmful . . . changes, but the foundation remains the same."
Since anarchists have stolen so much from Buddhism, why are they so hostile to religion since much of their belief system is grounded in it?
Finally, since I know that you are pro-violence, I will ask again: can you point to an instance where you used violence and achieved a positive end?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister