y'all are acting like the rich don't already have mercenaries and mafia
drapeaunoir
joined 1 year ago
I can't! :) all governments are fucking evil and must be destroyed
you can't fix the foundation of blood and suffering that the house was built on top of
I usually couldn't care less about electoralism, but if any politician has get rid of police and government as their platform, I will vote for them and campaign SO HARD.
I really appreciate this thread and I feel inspired to reply. I think a lot of why anarchism is difficult to understand is because it is hard for us to imagine anything other than the "capitalist realism" that has spread to the entire world. As they say, it is the air you breathe, the water you swim in, so it can be hard to see.
So if you want to understand how anarchism can possibly work, really what you have to do is look at places where it is, in fact, actually working. Find the edges of society where affinity groups are actually doing real work in supporting the unhoused, defending marginalized and vulnerable communities, feeding and empowering one-another without any hierarchy. Look closely at the actions of Block Cop City for instance, or the Zapatistas, or Rojava. Look at how things worked in the Spanish Civil War, or Occupy Wall Street. As an added exercise, find some other examples of non-hierarchical activities and actions in your own life (you may be surprised how many there are).
Lots of hierarchy-apologists will decry these things always fail, or are only applicable in very specific contexts, but judge for yourself. There are obviously autonomous tactics that clearly work within these examples, but can you imagine them working in other contexts? How are they organizing themselves if it isn't by way of hierarchy? How are they getting things accomplished without rules and punishments? Keep an open mind, use your imagination, and you may just find yourself thinking that anarchy is indeed possible beyond these given examples.
Hey thanks for the conversation! :)
So this is Star Trek. Being "not dead in a classical sense" applies to everyone who ever steps foot on a transporter. It's all sci-fi nonsense, so I really don't think we can apply any aspect of it to questions of ethics. And we don't have to, actually.
"Newborn" was not the right word. Tuvix was a new person that "began life" at the moment of the transporter accident. Yes, he was the combination of two separate people, but as he demonstrates throughout the episode, he is his own person, and in many ways, better at vital tasks than either of his "ancestors." He was a unique and valuable sentient life-form deserving of life.
I maintain there was no ethical dilemma. The question was never: "do you LET two people die to SAVE one." Again: Tuvix was never in any danger to be "saved" from. If no one does anything, then Tuvak and Neelix would have died, and Tuvix will continue living. If someone does something, then Tuvix dies. Full stop. The only enticing part about it is that those two dead people now become alive again through sci-fi wizardry.
The ethical dilemma would have been more high-stakes if, say, Tuvix would have died in a month anyway due to [insert technobabble here]. Then someone doing something might be more of an ethical dilemma. But as it stands, the only ACTION Janeway could have taken would be to end a life. The INACTION would be to allow Tuvix to continue living.
The classical ethics thought-experiment, The Trolley Problem, is fundamentally a question of agency and acts of will. The trolley is going to kill 5 people. Pull a lever and it diverts the trolley to the other track where it kills 1 person. Do you pull the lever and kill 1 to save 5? Does not pulling the lever make you responsible since you are there? And this is more relatable to this conversation: what if instead of pulling a lever, you have to push someone onto the tracks to save the 5?
But in this situation, the trolley has already killed 2 people through no action of your own (or anyone else's; it was an accident). Tuvix is alive and well and is in no danger of they trolley. But through sci-fi nonsense, if you pick up Tuvix and throw him onto the tracks, the trolley will kill him and somehow bring Tuvak and Neelix back to life. The ethics are clear.
Full disclosure, I consider Janeway to be one of my favourite captains of all time, if not my very favourite. I LOVE Janeway. I think she was fantastic and I'm devastated that Prodigy was cancelled. However, I think in this particular situation, she acted unethically. I don't blame her, I probably would have done the same thing for my beloved friends. But she did not follow classical nor Starfleet ethics in this case. Her action caused the death of a sentient life (new and unique in all the universe!) for the sake of two dead (whatever that means) friends. IMHO she made a mistake, but she's human and the mistake just makes her more relatable for it.
IMHO this situation was not morally ambiguous, like at all. There was a transporter accident. Two crewmen died. That's that. The fact that a new sentient being came to life as a result is a completely separate matter. That being (Tuvix) as far as anyone should be concerned, was a newborn.
At that point, what you had was a tragic accident of no one's intention or volition.
The choice was never "save two crewmen" vs "save Tuvix," because at that point, the two crewman were already dead. And Tuvix was alive and in no danger. There was no moral impetus to do anything. A tragedy happened, it sucks. Move on with life.
So IMHO Janeway absolutely, intentionally, volitionally murdered Tuvix, who was a newborn in no danger. She absolutely resurrected two crewman who were already dead. She did this for her own personal reasons, and acted immorally. QED.
Thank you for coming to my irrationally-important-to-me TED talk.
I think the confusion here might be in the qualities of what anarchists mean when they say "state." It is commonly remarked that anarchists are against the state. But as you can probably imagine, they are not opposed to, say, libraries. Or emergency services. Or sewer lines.
What "the state" represents, what anarchists are opposed to, is the upholding of the status quo. The reproduction of the system that murders people, pollutes the environment, enforces the necessity of wage slavery, protects billionaires and punishes the homeless.
That giant system of oppression (capitalism) is not something these small groups can or want to do. Forming councils is very different from the prison industrial system. Kicking out a member is very different from arresting someone for stealing bread to feed his family. And scuffles with neighbors is hardly a war. These are the actions (right or wrong) of groups of friends. This is human-level drama.
What anarchists oppose is the giant machine that is not human-sized; the unstoppable Leviathan that does not think or feel but rather lumbers eternally toward ever greater destruction and madness. It is the worldwide money monster that cuts the trees, turns farmland into parking lots, treats chickens like factory parts, and ensures there are more empty buildings than there are unhoused people.
"The state" is the nation-state, yes. But it is also (and more importantly), the "state of things." The awful, joyless, depressing, inescapable state of things. That is what anarchists really oppose.
Caveats: 1) Not all anarchists feel this way. 2) I speak mostly from a North American perspective. 3) I didn't read the article. 4) I'm a lemmy noob.
Knows so little he uses an image of Iron Eyes Cody? Nah, seems too ironic to be real.