Apparently it is okay for them to speak freely. But for Sarah Palin to speak freely and express her contempt for Assange and Wikileaks. The crowd of progressives who adulate Assange apparently did a DDOS trying to shutdown her website.
If you want to see how deranged the left can be, read the comments on that article.
More amusingly, is the number of people who fancy themselves "anarchists" and do not realize that anarchy (as opposed to rich kids destroying stuff in large groups to show how cool they are) is actually a worse situation than a government. In an anarchy, a bunch of masked kids running through a big city smashing in shop windows would be machine gunned or sold into slavery by the private security firms that would exist in a true anarchy.
Hell, most of them don't realize that "anarchy" doesn't last more than a few days, tops.
ReplyDeleteThen you have autocracy by warlords, at least in the short term.
Anarchy doesn't lead to Bakunin's paradise, it leads to Somalia.
(Or, to quote the Dead Kennedys at them, "Anarchy sounds good to me - then someone asks 'who'll fix the sewers?', and would the rednecks just play King of the Neighborhood?"
Strip away the pointless snark about "rednecks", many of whom probably have a stronger affinity for democratic government than Jello Biafra does, and you have the counterargument in a nutshell.)
I'm not convinced that society by private security firms would be as you just described (Iceland managed 390 years of rule like that, without anarchy); however, I also think it's stupid to call society by private security firms "anarchy". This is half of a reason that I don't call myself "anarcho-capitalist".
ReplyDeleteThe other half of a reason is that it's rather stupid to call the economic system that recognizes the rights to life, liberty, property, etc. as "capitalist"--because that implies "rule by people with capital", which is incorrect. I've come to realize the correct term is "individualist".
In any case, most kids who think of anarchy as riots and doing what you want play right into the Collectivist's hands: they like anarchy, because it justifies greater central control, and greater trampling of rights.
Also: Now that I've seen the comments, the anti-Palin are pretty inane...it's especially annoying how many of those comments try to make Palin out to be a whiner, when she's merely reporting facts about how attacks have been coordinated against her, in the name of Free Speech.
ReplyDeleteThat, and Palin is one of the few people I've seen that is approaching the Wikileaks issue correctly: Assange didn't redact the names of Afghanistanian operatives, so we should go after him for that. The state secrets issue is annoying, but that's a free speech issue!
In an anarchy, a bunch of masked kids running through a big city smashing in shop windows would be machine gunned or sold into slavery by the private security firms that would exist in a true anarchy.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there's also a downside.
I'll tell you what thought comes to mind every time I see some G-whatever summit haunted by these punks posing as anarchists.
ReplyDelete--Law and Order: The only thing keeping 'anarchists' alive.
They are allowed to exist ONLY because of John Q. Public's sometimes-stupid level of tolerance for such stupidity.
They would never be machine-gunned. They're much too valuable for that.
ReplyDeleteThey'd be captured, cut up, and put into the organ banks. That way, they could benefit society.