Re: Fuck the State
Posted: 26 Sep 2014, 8:39pm
Wherin the thread title goes completely through the looking glass: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in- ... n-all-day/
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
I don't know offhand if she was an actual anarchist, but I can definitely see a sympathetic ear to it in that line of thought.Dr. Medulla wrote:Do any of y'all better-read anarchists know whether Jane Jacobs self-identified as an anarchist? I did a lecture yesterday on postwar urban decline and as I was talking about her criticism of urban planning and her idea of what makes a city liveable, I realized in the middle of everything that she was talking about spontaneous order. She was a clear critic of postwar liberalism, with its top-down emphasis on experts who could "fix" what all the dopey people are incapable of doing, but I wasn't aware of her larger philosophy. So, anyone know whether she was an anarchist or just accidentally fit in with that criticism?
Yeah, exactly. I'd like to be able to tell my class that she was an anarchist (if she was) if for no other reason than to fuck with the people who thought she made a lot of sense (the students are, by and large, rather conservative).Wolter wrote:I don't know offhand if she was an actual anarchist, but I can definitely see a sympathetic ear to it in that line of thought.Dr. Medulla wrote:Do any of y'all better-read anarchists know whether Jane Jacobs self-identified as an anarchist? I did a lecture yesterday on postwar urban decline and as I was talking about her criticism of urban planning and her idea of what makes a city liveable, I realized in the middle of everything that she was talking about spontaneous order. She was a clear critic of postwar liberalism, with its top-down emphasis on experts who could "fix" what all the dopey people are incapable of doing, but I wasn't aware of her larger philosophy. So, anyone know whether she was an anarchist or just accidentally fit in with that criticism?
It's funny how useless the conservative/liberal split becomes when one starts looking at far "left" anarchists and far-"right" libertarians.Dr. Medulla wrote:Yeah, exactly. I'd like to be able to tell my class that she was an anarchist (if she was) if for no other reason than to fuck with the people who thought she made a lot of sense (the students are, by and large, rather conservative).Wolter wrote:I don't know offhand if she was an actual anarchist, but I can definitely see a sympathetic ear to it in that line of thought.Dr. Medulla wrote:Do any of y'all better-read anarchists know whether Jane Jacobs self-identified as an anarchist? I did a lecture yesterday on postwar urban decline and as I was talking about her criticism of urban planning and her idea of what makes a city liveable, I realized in the middle of everything that she was talking about spontaneous order. She was a clear critic of postwar liberalism, with its top-down emphasis on experts who could "fix" what all the dopey people are incapable of doing, but I wasn't aware of her larger philosophy. So, anyone know whether she was an anarchist or just accidentally fit in with that criticism?
The model of two-dimensional spectrum politics is rarely illuminating. One of those many things that are geared to inhibit critical thought and debate by pigeon-holing people and, fundamentally, making them hate politics because it turns everything into an either/or proposition.Wolter wrote:It's funny how useless the conservative/liberal split becomes when one starts looking at far "left" anarchists and far-"right" libertarians.Dr. Medulla wrote:Yeah, exactly. I'd like to be able to tell my class that she was an anarchist (if she was) if for no other reason than to fuck with the people who thought she made a lot of sense (the students are, by and large, rather conservative).Wolter wrote:I don't know offhand if she was an actual anarchist, but I can definitely see a sympathetic ear to it in that line of thought.Dr. Medulla wrote:Do any of y'all better-read anarchists know whether Jane Jacobs self-identified as an anarchist? I did a lecture yesterday on postwar urban decline and as I was talking about her criticism of urban planning and her idea of what makes a city liveable, I realized in the middle of everything that she was talking about spontaneous order. She was a clear critic of postwar liberalism, with its top-down emphasis on experts who could "fix" what all the dopey people are incapable of doing, but I wasn't aware of her larger philosophy. So, anyone know whether she was an anarchist or just accidentally fit in with that criticism?
Yep. Non-authoritarian politics do not fit properly on the spectrum as is usually imagined, because old school conservative thinking is strongly pro-authority (hence the "fiercely individualist" Republicans being pro-military and police spending), and the traditional American idea of liberalism meaning "government providing necessary services."Dr. Medulla wrote:The model of two-dimensional spectrum politics is rarely illuminating. One of those many things that are geared to inhibit critical thought and debate by pigeon-holing people and, fundamentally, making them hate politics because it turns everything into an either/or proposition.Wolter wrote:It's funny how useless the conservative/liberal split becomes when one starts looking at far "left" anarchists and far-"right" libertarians.Dr. Medulla wrote:Yeah, exactly. I'd like to be able to tell my class that she was an anarchist (if she was) if for no other reason than to fuck with the people who thought she made a lot of sense (the students are, by and large, rather conservative).Wolter wrote:I don't know offhand if she was an actual anarchist, but I can definitely see a sympathetic ear to it in that line of thought.Dr. Medulla wrote:Do any of y'all better-read anarchists know whether Jane Jacobs self-identified as an anarchist? I did a lecture yesterday on postwar urban decline and as I was talking about her criticism of urban planning and her idea of what makes a city liveable, I realized in the middle of everything that she was talking about spontaneous order. She was a clear critic of postwar liberalism, with its top-down emphasis on experts who could "fix" what all the dopey people are incapable of doing, but I wasn't aware of her larger philosophy. So, anyone know whether she was an anarchist or just accidentally fit in with that criticism?
Yeah, the little bits I was able to locate suggested that critics labelled her one, but that seemed to me like an effort to dismiss her, not understand the basis of her views.Flex wrote:She's been called an anarchist, I'm not actually sure I've ever seen her self-identify as such though.
This is a dumb connection, but I just watched the episode of King of the Hill where Arlen banned trans fats and Bill immediately took to eating everything in sight that wasn't banned, happy in the knowledge that he was following the rules and that govt would protect him. Of course, he became morbidly obese.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 6:55amhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lo ... -1.4059207
This struck me as further to the notion of spontaneous order. More precisely, that experiment in Holland where accidents at a dangerous intersection decreased by removing stop signs and speed limits, forcing people to regulate their own behaviour.
Reflecting Mike Judge's libertarian position of being both anti-government yet thinking the average person is a complete moron (see Idiocracy). Which suggests that, at least in practice, libertarianism is the playground of elitists, whatever their contrary rhetoric.Silent Majority wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 7:50amThis is a dumb connection, but I just watched the episode of King of the Hill where Arlen banned trans fats and Bill immediately took to eating everything in sight that wasn't banned, happy in the knowledge that he was following the rules and that govt would protect him. Of course, he became morbidly obese.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 6:55amhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lo ... -1.4059207
This struck me as further to the notion of spontaneous order. More precisely, that experiment in Holland where accidents at a dangerous intersection decreased by removing stop signs and speed limits, forcing people to regulate their own behaviour.
Spontaneous order is a pretty powerful tool for understanding how societies actually get along, whatever their mode of production or government system. I think it's an undervalued contribution to theory and something that Marxists haven't been as good at understanding.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 6:55amhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lo ... -1.4059207
This struck me as further to the notion of spontaneous order. More precisely, that experiment in Holland where accidents at a dangerous intersection decreased by removing stop signs and speed limits, forcing people to regulate their own behaviour.
The notion that, left to our own devices, we'd suddenly become treacherous, murderous monsters is a curious original sin position. The classic modern liberal expression of it was Arthur Schlesinger, Jr's claim that within each person's breast is a Hitler or a Stalin that must be restrained. If one wants to go Freudian, it's an interesting admission of what a person would apparently like to do if not for those pesky laws.eumaas wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 8:55amSpontaneous order is a pretty powerful tool for understanding how societies actually get along, whatever their mode of production or government system. I think it's an undervalued contribution to theory and something that Marxists haven't been as good at understanding.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑12 Apr 2017, 6:55amhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lo ... -1.4059207
This struck me as further to the notion of spontaneous order. More precisely, that experiment in Holland where accidents at a dangerous intersection decreased by removing stop signs and speed limits, forcing people to regulate their own behaviour.