Erin Pizzey tells her own story.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

Re: Essentials matter

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Essentials matter

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

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.