49 Followers
17 Following
337 Posts
the dreams I plant in someone's mind
may bloom as hope for humankind
pronounsthey
anarchistcommunist
languagesEnglish (native); passable French and Welsh; can read Latin
where?Salford, England

The number of people who believe - and unabashedly say, publicly, - “the murder of these people is okay because those other people were murdered first” is unbelievably astounding, and scary as hell.

PS - If you’re thinking of coming into my replies to justify the collective punishment and mass starvation of an entire population forcibly displaced and corralled into inhumane conditions by a state military offensive, one million humans of which are children, ONE MILLION CHILDREN, don’t.

@freakazoid when you say "a lie", I can read that two ways:

- "it makes the whole l/r axis a lie, and the a/a-a the only one that matters; this is absurd; therefore ancaps are not authoritarian"

or

- "it makes the whole l/r axis a lie, because it implies the l/r axis is essentially equivalent to the a/a-a axis, but with the dividing line moved left so it's between anarchists and everyone else"

Shelley, "Queen Mab", iii
MSN

You know that list of economic systems explained in terms of "You have two cows…".

The last entry is always "Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."

Is there actually *any* economic system where someone who owns two cows cannot sell one and buy a bull?

Later: I have often heard criticism of settler states which is particularly about their existence as states rather than about their comprising settlers— power, rather than people. Maybe if the Pilgrim Fathers had lived within the polity of the Nauset, rather than founding their own which would eventually force the Nauset to live within it instead, things would have been very different.
In addition I think we have to distinguish
- this person has a right to live in this place because their ancestors did
- this person has no right to live in this place because their ancestors didn't
- this person has a right to move to this place because their ancestors lived there
- this person has no right to move to this place because their ancestors didn't live there
I think a lot of this also turns on the reason a person's ancestors had to leave— whether they left in order to conquer a new state, versus if they left in chains, for example, or in order not to starve. But, again, people are rarely explicit about what they mean.
And if everyone claiming English ancestry in the US and Canada (about 31m people) had no right to live anywhere but England (population 56m, with 1,124 people per square mile), they wouldn't fit, and a right which can't be exercised is no right at all.)
The terms under which people say that, say, people living in Ireland have less right to stay there if they are the descendants of the Plantation of Ulster, compared to the descendants of the people who were living there before, are similar to those which the far right uses against people of colour in my country.