talkpolitics | Erin Pizzey tells her own story.

Entry tags:

Erin Pizzey tells her own story.

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/01/erin-pizzey-one-womans-story.html

Ok, that is the link.
Me? I reckon she did the right thing.
I am not sure what benefit I might have gained from blowing up Biba, a store in london - but if her refuges had been there for my mother, it certainly would have helped.
I am suprised that some feminists still attack her - and no, I don't subscribe to Harriet Harman's view that men cannot contribute anything to the family.

But what's your take on Erin Pizzey, I wonder?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yes, this is true - however, I think that we who are white working class need to be aware that People of colour face the same problems as we do, and that by banding together with them , we can make changes happen that benefit everyone.

Politics is honor among theives. "Banding together" to "make changes" is merely a euphemism for ganging up to do unto others before they do unto "us." "Politics" is not an answer; it's the problem.

Do you have an alternative strategy, other than launchinga a 'pre-emptive strike' against anyone you happen to disagree with ?

Eschew the pursuit of power over others. Take as one's ethics the position of universally preferable behavior.

"It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means"
— Karl von Clausewitz, On War

"Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one less scoundrel in the world."
— Thomas Carlyle

I can certainly get behind the idea of renouncing power over others, in the sense of becoming a public servant rather than someone trying to sell something.

However, it has happened before that I am summoned to assista female passenger who is being sexually harrassed on a train. She is saying that she wants to make a complaint to the police.

Ok, I am not harrassing her myself, but this other guy is. Do I call the police - who will doubtlessly execise the power of the State and put him in cuffs? If he tried to escape , should I tackle him? Or is it best to let this person , and every other pickpocket and miscreant against the public good go, for the sake of liberty?

Ppersonally I think that gandalf had the right idea. In the LotR trilogy, he does not compell King Theoden to take up arms against Saruman , but does encouragee him to resist the evil encroaching upon the land.

I wonder what your take on this is.

...in the sense of becoming a public servant rather than someone trying to sell something.

"Service" is voluntary. If you're not selling or giving service then you are coercing people to accept your "service" "for their own good."

"When A injures or annoys B, on the pretext of improving B, A is a scoundrel."
— H.L. Mencken

In the case of the passenger, you are assisting somone who has been agressed against. Defense is not an initiation of agression. Libertarianism is not necessarilly pacifism (although I would assert that all pacifists are essentially libertarian). Defense, security, these are human needs and they would not stop being human needs in the absence of government. What would happen in a government–free society is that no agency would have the mystical authority to be above the very laws it claims to enforce. In other words, there would be no violence–enforced monopoly on the provision of security.

My take on things is this: stealing to prevent theft is not preventing theft; bullying on the pretext of ending bullying is not ending bullying; making war to end war is not making peace. I'm not calling for an end to rules; I am calling for an end to rulers — people who claim to have a monopoly on violence and a collective–given right to do what no individual has the right to do or to delegate: initiate force against the innocent — those who have not themselves agressed against others.

What would happen in a government–free society is that no agency would have the mystical authority to be above the very laws it claims to enforce. In other words, there would be no violence–enforced monopoly on the provision of security.

Well, if a government takes it's role seriously , you can have that anyway - but nobody takes their role seriously it seems.

At least, there are cops, politicians, etc, who think they are above the law they claim to enforce.

taking them , and the organisations they represent out of the equation isn't going to solve the dillemma - you just end up saying " everyone carries a gun , or even a baseball bat, and metes out justice for themselves" if you do away with a police force.

Well, if a government takes it's role seriously...

No, it is inherent in the very nature of politics. Politics is about power, first and foremost, of necessity. All other ends and goals must be subordinate to the acquisition of power first.

...everyone carries a gun , or even a baseball bat, and metes out justice for themselves...

Well, whereas self-defense is more respected and not infringed in a free society, it is not necessarilly true that everyone would necessarilly decide to DIY on their defense and security needs. We don't have a division of labor in the market for nothing. Not everyone is good at every job; that's why we trade. A market in security and protection from crime would develop in the absence of a State monopoly. It would likely evolve out of the insurance industry, but it wouldn't have to do so in that fashion. It's impossible to predict what human inventiveness would produce, but we do know that where there is competition there is improvement, increased efficiency, and innovation. Even with things the way they are now, there are plenty of private security options. In a freer society, with no War On Drugs (on people) and other victimless crimes, the policing becomes more about protecting people from violations they actually want to be protected from, not from themselves.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Erin Pizzey tells her own story.

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter

Re: Essentials matter