babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
A libertarian who thinks that the US constitution is "revolutionary" is quite the sight. The codification of the settler colonies' slave society and its domination by the business elite was a revolutionary movement for change. ROFLMAO
@ sknguy II
Exactly.
Your words remind me of cases in which people might want to impose their will, or might want to refuse to recognize something - like marriage equality, the nature of families, or human rights - and been confounded by the courts.
There have been countless cases in which these prejudices have been brought into the open and forced into legal recognition by people bringing matters to be resolved before the court.
Even when the court has decided in an unfortunate way - Dred Scott, or Scopes - the issue has been galvanized by the process.
I know our justice system is highly controlled, and in many ways a rigged game. But the fact is that it is where people bring natural disputes and issues for resolution. Because of that, it is often more on the leading edge of change than legislatures, or even the general public will
I'm aware of the Carlin joke of slave owners wanting to be free to put it more sucintly krops but back then slavery was a pretty general logic throughout the world, it would have been nice if these ideas had been based in a non slave economy but that's how the dice rolls sometime, what would a country without those slavery prefigurations as well as the other anoying problems of puritanism and patriarchy have looked like. It's the ideas tha still matter at the end of the day.
skn the problem I see is scale, I would argue that this goes back to the defeat of hunter gatherer afinity models and the end of human scale, I believe that a reincarnated form of the affinity model is what humans want to return to on a deep level. What I ultimately want is the end of what can be called ritual and reification. The law is a product of this, its a product of human scale and individual skill failing, the baby steps we can take can start with de-writing law out of key spheres of human society that can make a difference. Look at the internet for example and the spontaneous organization that can be made possible from that, a political economy based on the internet should have less laws and government not more(this isn't counting revolutionary tendencies).
Interms of content and function you could say that I want there to be less content then there is right now, I do not want any content regarding sexual/recreational behavior or basic human utility, those are avenues that we can start from. Attacking the content would be the baby steps for me.
And yet you still called that piece of garbage written by self interested business owners (including slaver traders) revolutionary. Be careful your American exceptionaism is showing its tawdry face.
It is the ideas that matter and the US constitution contains none for real democracy for the majority of the people. it never has and even with a widened franchise it is not capable of providing democratic governance.
You do realize the internet is the product of government and military research?
Kropotkin your hilarious, does someone who doesn't like civilization very much really going to to be a shill for them, christ man stick to the fucking ideas, the us was a hotbed for mostly french ideas at the time whether you want to admit it or not and the bourgieos class was revolutionary, when I use the term revolutionary I mean it in a discriptive sense, fascists are revolutionary, you take ideas that are good and dispense with the rest. Obviously the us is not a socialist paradise DUHHHH, I'm not concerned about it, quite frankly we have to forget about most socialism and reified democracy(I'm not against it as such but prefer consenses) and skip straight to anarchism as fast as possible. The early enlightenment period had a mostly negative bend to it which I think is preferable to the postitive societal affirming presriptive approach, I'm not interested in defending societies, in the long run I want them disolved, the later enlightenment period and up to most of the post-68 period has been a waste of time as far as I'm concerned, too much Marxism particularly due to the fact that Anarchism collapsed after 1939 and it had no compitition in the intellectual sphere, thus people like Gramsci and others have had a huge influence on alot of the language that hard leftists use today.
Also do you have the same disdain for the marxist/leninist based farce in the 20th century that went on in Eastern Europe and China? It was worse and there was no good that ever came out of it. I'd also be interested if you even identify with the ideas of your namesake, cause I'm probably a lot closer to him then you are by the looks of things.
Anyways...I didn't even want to make this about the US, it's just a usefull example of liberties by exclusion of content in the books and hypothetically building on them in another context, its not about replicating the busniness class(like the marxists did in power)or creating slavery, get to the topic at hand for fucks sake. I'm not even talking about a pricipled constitution seeing as it was the more conservative forces during the revolution that brought it to fruition, but whatever piece of paper there is to work with, my arguement is about cutting the words out of key aspects of movement, activity and expression.
And your point on the internet is partly right, though seeing that the state monopolises many things I don't see how that is a good argument, especially considering that most governments want it restricted right now, its like saying the printing press is a product of the catholic church as opposed to a human mind within a particular institution.
I don't know gang, is it me or are others starting to think Mike is a swell guy?
Nice to see that you've given our policy a superficial read while completely ignoring its spirit and intent.
Dismissing the concept of oppression and thereby dismissing anti-oppression politics, insinuating that only people from marginalized groups, and not the privileged mainstream, would really want hate laws, and suggesting that people should not depend on law but rather face the KKK themselves (BTW, how has that worked out for African Americans in the southern US?) -- these are ideas that attack the very basis of progressive thought, anti-racism, and a whole slew of other protections that people have fought (and died) for.
You have been invited to listen to those whose knowledge, experience and understanding of the above are superior, but you have not. You might have chosen to leave the thread, but you remain, contributing increasingly hostile and insulting remarks toward other babblers and putting forward ideas that minimalize and dismiss the experiences and concerns of oppressed and marginalized people.
While you're entirely free to hold such opinions, you are not free to express them here. I'm going to give you a few days to think about why you're here, participating in a discussion forum where your ideas are very much at odds with its mandate. Feel free to return with a better understanding of the mandate of babble and the issues it embraces. Or not. Either way, this remains a place for progressive thoughts and ideas.
OK a combination of apathy, potentially forgetting and not knowing my old password and not knowing whether this ban was more then temporary kept me away but I MUST offer what may or may not be a parting response.
Rebecca you're a real piece of work, in my time of visiting message boards of all types I have never seen a mod display such superiority complexes such as yourself in contrast to my 'non superior' views. I always discuss or debate in a forthright manner as my history will show and never have I displayed a superiority complex, not even to someone like unionist who is my least favorite membor of this board. I can remember a time here when the job of a mod was to ban archemedies not display such blatant bias against a particular view which like it or not falls in the progressive spectrum.
You quite frankly have no understanding of my own views beyond silly conjecture, I insinuated nothing of the sort as far as suggesting only marginalized groups want hate speech laws(so far its mostly gullty white liberals). I suggested no such abandenment of the people against the kkk in the face of the clean up of laws, if you knew anything about the history of the civil rights movement you would know that the original actions against the kkk were direct actions outside of the sphere of law, mores were already changing which led up to the civil rights act which I'm not inherently against considering that it is a base level law that will exist as long as people believe in some form of overarching law. You do know that most anti-racist groups are extra-legal right?(ARA is mostly made of anarchists).
All I ever wanted to talk about was the function and content of law and how it could be gone about nullifying it, the absense of law will not mean the kkk(a miniscule group nowadays) will have free reign, it will simply mean that action against them will be more direct and on the ground, which is how human action should be in the grand scheme of things. I'll actually post a link to an essay and a video which helps make my point, the video in particular actually deals with black on white inequalities as it exists in the US.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/black/sp001673.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8eQ_EYwQQI&feature=related