Sighting the sites: this site cited
November 27, 2007
I recently ran across Rad Geek People’s Daily, which is a thoughtful anarchist blog, with a feminist flavor. It’s of the socialist-anarchist branch. Perhaps the occasional humorous twists like calling for more government may be attributed to the youth of the author though, I think, socialism and government tend to get along like water and sponges.
The basic problem with government is, it’s so terribly attractive for people to bully others into doing what they feel is right. “Force and violence? It’s wrong! …except for this one purpose. Oh, and this one. And, y’know…”
The idea that we can create a perfect, harmonious world by threatening anyone who disagrees with our ideas with loss of their property, freedom, and lives is just not something that’s going to fly, here.
Nonetheless, it’s one of the more interesting sites I’ve run across, recently. I don’t agree with all of the politics espoused but, it has given me cause to think. I usually appreciate that.
Thanks for the notice, and for the kind words.
For clarification, though, what did you have in mind when you refer to “calling for more government” or “threatening anyone who disagrees with our ideas with loss of their property” etc.? I don’t recall calling for either lately, so specifics might help either clear up a misunderstanding, or at least clarify the point of disagreement.
Might not have been lately, old geek. I went through all of your postings, back to the start, last night, and it was toothsome, thank you.
A number of your posts have complained about not having enough government. This bill hadn’t passed, or that bill hadn’t passed, and you wished they’d gone through. Can track down the specifics, if you’d like, but perhaps they’re just obsolete. Don’t really care, myself, your site is thought-provoking, which is rare enough. It’s a tease. I like that.
Ah, I see. Well, I applaud your endurance, if you managed to scroll through the whole thing. When I started the blog almost seven years ago, I was not yet an anarchist, although I was interested in and occasionally sympathetic to libertarian and anarchist ideas. So there certainly are some posts in the older parts of the blog that I would not be willing to stand by today. I now believe that Leftist goals can be attained entirely through the abolition of coercive laws and through free association, and in fact will be attained more fully and more reliably through those means; and also that, even if they could not be so achieved, they would not be worth achieving at the cost of violating even one innocent person’s individual liberty. So I hope that what you had in mind can be chalked up to changing views over the years rather than to inconsistency.
On the other hand, there are many more recent cases in which I expressed a desire for a given piece of legislation to pass or to fail to pass, but I don’t see *that* as necessarily inconsistent with anarchism. Some legislation violates the rights of peaceful people and some respects those rights; some legislation makes government extremely dangerous and some legislation — e.g. bills to repeal the dangerous legislation — helps curb or ameliorate the danger. What I would repudiate from my days as a state Leftist is not concern with legislation per se, but rather the particular pieces of statist coercion that I was willing to support or excuse. As a practical matter, I have become pretty thoroughly disenchanted with the prospects for any meaningful progress through legislation or electoral politics, but I think the issue at stake is one of strategy, not one of anarchist principle.
Anyway, thank you again for the kind words; I’m glad you enjoy the blog. If I’ve managed to be provoke some interesting thoughts then that’s as much as I’ve ever hoped for.
Understood, and thank you for dropping by, and I appreciate the clarification. I am not seeing much hope in new laws, either, but I’ll grant you that some are more welcome than others.