< Those non-violent anarchists are NOT willing to take responsibility for the actions of others who call themselves "anarchists". Nor, it seems, are they willing to take responsibility for the damage their rhetoric might cause. >
There is an underlying moral stance, that damage of some kind occurs without decentralized control systems, and that groups ought not damage things. For the violent anarchist Kaczynski, the damage he perceived was to personal dignity and avoiding feelings of helplessness. As a class, anarchists could agree that some kinds of social damage are more important than others, and thus wiggle out of taking responsibility for what other people, with other moral systems, call "damage". For example, if property damage or injury or waste occurs, that is ok to them so long as the agent performing the injury was free and the other agent who was injured arguably had opted not to be. One simply defines-away the humanity of the individuals complicit in oppression because they (in this view) deserve it. Sure it is a dance with nihilism but it is also distinct from nihilism. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
