Thou shalt not create a machine to counterfeit a human mind.

  • 9 Posts
  • 1.12K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 14th, 2024

help-circle











  • Freedom of expression is limited by law?

    Freedom of speech is the freedom to voice ones thoughts.

    Freedom of expression is the freedom to voice as well as use art and other mediums to channel that expression. Expression is almost always more permissive than speech.

    In the US, the first amendment is pretty easy:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    However in the US this freedom of speech has been treated as freedom of expression.


  • A large number of anarchists are armed, yes.

    Two things can be true like everything in life.

    Anarchists/radical leftists want a society where weapons are unnecessary. Many are armed until that is possible precisely because the existing establishments are prone to violence.

    Again, pre-soviet Ukraine is an excellent example of this.

    Some of us choose not to be. But that isn’t to say we won’t take up arms, or provide other means of defending ourselves.

    In an anarchist society we would rather work to end the conditions that encourage violence - usually that is inequality. Many people with disabilities can still participate, with no expectations on how they do. Some simply cannot, so we would provide support as possible. Something else to remember is that while people can certainly choose to specialize in a role within the community, polymaths are exceptionally valuable.

    We harbor no illusions that the society is easy to obtain. But that can’t be a surprise giving wars have been fought over taxes.




  • It’s not that different in anarchy, it just doesn’t work the way you are accustomed to.

    When I mention a ‘trial’ it doesn’t refer to someone being a judge - judges are individuals who are supposed to be impartial, and that is impossible.

    There is no requirement for how the equivalent of a trial would proceed, but people would discuss it in an open forum, figure out evidence, ask questions, and build a consensus on both the perpetrator and actions to take.

    Any action taken, of course, is open to consequences. If it turns out that the people who formed an opinion on guilt and punishment were prejudice against the accused, then they would have to face that too.