Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Grammar question / was Re: my newest: Abolish the Police

Expand Messages
  • Nathan Byrd
    Or to simplify a bit, a speaker (or writer) implies, a listener (or reader) infers. and likewise I would not expect Mike to use English without error. (But
    Message 1 of 1692 , May 31 10:35 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      "Or to simplify a bit, a speaker (or writer) implies, a listener (or reader) infers.
      "and likewise I would not expect Mike to use English without error. (But since I have a journalism degree and now make my living in part by writing fiction, you may critique my writing all you like, and I would take it as a professional courtesy.)"

      You just reminded me of a question that I had way back when I was taking koine Greek, and even though my teacher was really gifted, for some reason he could never give me a straight answer on this one.

      What is the difference between "in order that" and "so that"?

      Many thanks in advance.
    • Dan
      Some professed ideology of equality of authority doesn t guarantee equality of emotional responses or of character. I fear, too, that in any society, the
      Message 1692 of 1692 , Dec 14, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Some professed ideology of equality of authority doesn't guarantee equality of emotional responses or of character.

        I fear, too, that in any society, the willingness to abdicate authority or responsibility will always be there and always a threat to that society. Some forms of anarchist society will, hopefully, be more resistant to this, but I don't think any will be completely free from it.

        Regards,

        Dan

        From: Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2011 5:23 PM
        Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Prison in a free society?

         
        And that's certainly an open possibility. I don't know how a system of anarchism could ever provide assurance or guarantees of any kind that a particular result would not occur. But I think that to the degree that people see themselves as equal in authority in society, that there is not a presumption of acquiescence to a select few in authority or to an external system of authority, and that we are not able to force the cost of our preferred solution onto others who disagree means that we are forced to be more actively aware and to more actively participate in the working out of justice rather than just absolve ourselves and let the anointed ones (police, judges, etc.) take care of it.

        Nathan

        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
        >
        > Okay, then I misunderstood you. I think we should distinguish -- and I believe you actually made this distinction, though, IIRC, Nozick is probably one who goes over it in his _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ -- between punishment, deterrence, and restitution. I'd focus all on merely rights violations and their correction. To me, that would be the whole or at least the greatest part of justice.
        >
        > Of course, I can see someone making an argument along the lines of that punishment is just because it's the normative causal outcome of given action. I believe Nathaniel Branden alludes to that in his discussion of capital punishment: murderers should die because they have murdered. (I'm not saying I agree with this argument, but one should note that Branden still came out against capital punishment in that piece.*)
        >
        > These distinctions in hand, however, doesn't really resolve the issue of whether market anarchism will be better than government. It does mean, however, that market anarchists, in so far as they are libertarians, are limited to certain kinds of reactions. Presumably, minarchists would have similar limitations. (Mike's fear, if I understand him, is that market anarchism will result in worse ways of dealing with criminals, such as violating procedural rights or meting out cruel punishments. Hence, his constant refrain of "Mad Max.")
        >
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Dan
        >
        > * An except is online here:
        >
        > http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/capital.html
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@...>
        > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2011 8:24 PM
        > Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Prison in a free society?
        >
        >
        >  
        > Dan: "As for the kind of sociopathic types you seem to be focusing on, I'm not in agreement with Nathan here. Exile or something worse would probably be in store for them in an anarchist society. Why would that be bad or not an improvement? It's also likely that someone who violently preys on others would, in a society where others can use lethal defense, likely eventually be killed. I'm not going to weep for that or even think it an injustice."
        >
        > I don't know that we're really in disagreement here. When I say I'm against punishment, that is not restricting the right to use violence in defense of property, especially someone who is known not to be deterred by any other means. To me, punishment is inflicting violence because of past actions that has no connection to present, imminent threat and no connection to restitution.
        >
        > Nathan

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.