The Watch

[ayoub]

Smoking will be banned from public places next year...

There's only one word... YAY!

And the British government want Micro$oft to give them a back door to Windows Vista encryption...

If that happens, I'm not sure I'll be upgrading in a hurry...

Comments

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

If a smoker smokes around me, s/he is affecting my freedom to breathe clean air... :)

Live and let live, but don't let another poison you as they poison themselves...

[inspectorjury.livejournal.com]

Then I contend, you are not an anarchist. An anarchist would simply walk away from where people are smoking not insist on a ban. For to live and let live implies to me anyway that the responsibility to avoid poisoning falls on you not on the smoker. Oh I quit six years ago so this isn't an attack on you because you are a non smoker. I am really trying to see how you reconcile your advocacy of a smoking ban with your philosophy of live and let live. What about the many who have embraced Anarchy due to smoking bans? LOL

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Heheh

It's true, that in an Anarchistic society, such rules wouldn't come about, because there'd be nobody to make the rules.

So I see your point, but, in that kind of society, you'll always find that the group you're in will only allow members who fit into the agreements within the group, so a bunch of non smokers, who run a village, wouldn't allow a smoker in...

It's an idealistic view, sure, but there you go :)

[inspectorjury.livejournal.com]

But the minute those anarchists form a group with rules to limit others they are no longer anarchists. This is a conundrum. :)

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Not rules, agreements...

As long as even two people need to live together, there has to be agreements or guidelines, it's a necessity...

[inspectorjury.livejournal.com]

Once they make an agreement that is fine. Then along comes the person who doesn't agree and to him it is either leave or agree this is a rule. So if he chooses not to agree he has been cast out due to a rule. But, let's say he agrees for he has no place to go or it's not important enough for him to fight for his right. At that point the people making the agreements have force him to agree with them because they are the majority. That is called majority rules. Welcome to democracy. LOL

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

The key factor is that no single person has more authority than the next.

It's like a village with one farmer, one blacksmith, one innkeeper, and one carpenter

Everybody needs the other, to make the village work, and so the village runs smoothly as long as services are given for services of equal value, and nobody runs the rule over another by force.

And yes, I realise I'm simply proving your earlier point, but, as an anarchist, I don't have to follow the rules of anarchy either ;)

[inspectorjury.livejournal.com]

Now that last statement is a truth I can't argue with. But, from now on I'm gonna think of you as a consertive Republican. LOL

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

LMAO!

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

I should give you my phone number, friend. Someday, I would like to have a long talk with you.
*grins*

I think you are about the only person I know who would keep coming up with counter points, instead of just giving up.
I love a good debate.

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

Me too :)

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

But if you live with a person who smokes, wouldn't it be better to have smoking in public allowed? After all, now this person has to come home and smoke.

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

That kind of society, with one type or group running a village is not an anarchic one, anyways.

[childeofloki.livejournal.com]

The fellow above already highlighted the question I was going to ask.
Now, though... " but don't let another poison you as they poison themselves..."

But an anarchist would not limit another person on poisoning themselves.