This conversation would go a lot different [with them],' he said. The biker was insinuating that the man would have been beaten up if he ran into the wrong crew of bikers. Eventually, the man took off his jacket and put it in the back seat of his car. The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline. Share this article Share. Share or comment on this article: Biker forces man to take off Sons of Anarchy jacket because he wasn't member of gang e-mail Comments Share what you think.
View all. More top stories. Bing Site Web Enter search term: Search. Fury as 'outnumbered' police simply look on as Extinction Rebellion protesters Face justice for my son: From one mother to another, the agonised plea to diplomat's wife who fled to U. Pictured: Superfit runner, 35, who collapsed and died on finish line of Cardiff Half Marathon a year after Is the pill past its sell-by date?
There are now 15 types of female contraception - from a week jab to Cocaine made me a monster: He binged so much even Keith Richards took a dim view - and as Elton John reveals Elton Uncensored: Rehab? It taught me how to make a bed and wash my own clothes Why no one deserves to die like Mum and Dad: Woman is to deliver Mail's social care petition to No. Check it out if you want to see where democracy really came from.
But where social arrangements grow too cumbersome bullies will use that social environs to erect contexts and systems which militate agaisnt reasonable objections to their demands of us. These grow bigger and bigger until you have something resembling feudalism, something like 'free market capitalism' under the banner of 'states' rights'. But consider this: what if you live in a state or district in which the majority will never be on your side? Can this be democracy? If you are nominally extended the right to vote, but never receive representation that you do not regard as the enemy of your interests?
Parmenides: The One, infinite and indivisible. When All is equal All is truly One.
Creator Slams 'Sons Of Anarchy' Lawsuit – Deadline
Wednesday, January 28, -- PM. The question is, which one is it? Is it the 'one' that unifies a count of units? Or the 'one' counted in that unity? And if the former 'one', which one is it? Do you even know what you mean? You know, in a philosophy discussion this is a very serious charge, requiring a non-question-begging response. Simply reasserting the same does not make it understandable, let alone true regardless of what the Bellman says in the Hunting of the Snark.
Do your arguments above discern one thing from another and call it all one? Or call discerned what, you suppose, reveals all is one? If being is, is it also not? Or does the participant engender what is by altering it through its own departure from it? Is time a plenum? If so, what quantifier can encompass it?
If no one is what time is, then what act or agency its being so? Where does it begin or end? Or is there something incorrigably no one, non-quantifiable, its meaning and worth, its moment is? The active mode of this need is our criticism of each other's resulting response. Ask yourself, then, why some of us demand uniform belief? A recent court case upheld the claim of a religiously own business to deny birth control and abortion coverage to its employees, as a matter of its freedom of religion.
But does my freedom mean a right to impose my views upon you? Does religious freedom imply a right of religious authority over the members of the church? Even its employess not members of it? This ruling is an example of casuisty. How is your 'freedom' and 'one' not similar? The Socratic dialog never led to truth, only more questions; I prefer One answer, the answer is just One. Just the place for a Snark! Thursday, January 29, -- PM. Well, how about looking at the question as a difference between autonomy and sovereignty? It's all well that each of us is autonomously free to be him- or herself.
But people assert property rights by which they raise a sovereign claim to deprive others of it. This was as deceptive a suggestion in the eighteenth century as it would be in the twenty-first. This is the part of the equation that libertarians so willfully refuse to see. Its law is not liberating, but obligating, or criminalizing freedom. And, by the way, there is no inalienable right to property established in the American Constitution. In fact, property is only mentioned in terms of the conditions under which it can be alienated.
The Reformation was said to be a struggle of individual freedom against hierarchy. This is a misunderstanding. The Latin Church was indeed hierarchical, and imposed hierarchy upon any emerging political entity in Western Europe. But the feudal system was not itself inherently hierarchical. It was an organic growth of personal covenant. Each binding agreement was fluid and individual. A tenant was not subordinate to his lord, and outside the covenant he was equal to all, except for the sovereign.
In Anglo-Saxon England even a peasant could sue a lord in court, though his remedy would be rated according to his class, but his right to appear in court would not. When the Reformation blew up in the face of the Latin Church it was inspired by this egalitarian feudal principle that all social relations are relation of individual covenant. The famous case of Anne Hutchinson underscores the point. Sovereignty is no more individual than the market value of the property over which it is claimed. And the fact is that property claims can only exceed a fairly low level without developing an ethic requiring others to subordinate their own autonomy to it.
The rich claim that they alone know what is best for the continued prosperity generated by their property and that therefore they must be sovereign over it. They then claim, also, that others must be coerced to serve their needs because the propertyless will not work even for their own needs without social force or deprivation applied.
This, of course, relates the question of anarchy to the earlier thread on hypocrisy, in that there cannot be an honest anarchist, at least not on the neo-con, libertarian side of the economic spectrum. Sunday, February 1, -- PM. You can read the transcript here. Lots of interesting and challenging questions were asked, so for anyone interested in anarchism, I would encourage you to check it out.
Monday, February 2, -- PM. Is law oracular? Or are we all legislators? If each is the lawgiver, the process of social harmony is a constant revision, a dialectic of critique and response through which our differences prevent social sclerosis by engaging everyone in continuous alteration of the conditions of concourse and discourse. Society is meant to be dynamic. And is meant to leave no one out of that drama.
In a way, the job of the community is to provide the context in which each individual is realized in all its merits and character. But this limits how much disparity there can be amongst us in access to that drama. Those who feel an interest is that disparity engineer means of cutting some of us off from it. The simplest method is to require eternal verity and oracular certainty in law. Paul Feyerabend, in The Conquest of Abundance, says that the first towns were not markets or fortresses, but communities of landlords separating themselves from surrounding tenants.
Indignation becomes "resentment", law becomes sacred and immaculate, or stifling and corrupt. Before there was capital, there was, famously, barter. But do we really remember this rightly? If so, then money shuts down the human flow of mutual interest and so sets up the process of creating social disparities. The world gets divided between those who are privileged to pursue their interests and those who can only subsist in obligatory service to that privileged class.
The Romans were past-masters at establishing and enforcing obligation. Their law was rigid, status related, and brutally enforced. Rome did not fall, it was abandoned. The bishop of Rome tried to revive his position by claiming superior legal status to the Eastern Empire.
Log in or register to post comments
This did not work, but as Western Europe began to consolidate after centuries of raids, the Pope was able to assert his authority by creating a new Rome, in opposition to the old empire on Constantinople. The most effective weapons in this were the Latin language, and the unquestioned authority of Roman law. This combination suppressed the democratic aspirations of the people. Meanwhile, Anglo-Saxon law was emerging from a loose collection of highly democratized communities, but then conquered by the Normans who were at once at odds with Rome, but in need of some external justification for their suppression of unrest against their rule over the English.
- The Murder of Rachel: A Stranger Murdered My Daughter When She Was 21. This is the Whole Story!
- The Storm Before the Calm: Book 1 in the CONVERSATIONS WITH HUMANITY Series.
- The 100 best nonfiction books: No 59 – Culture and Anarchy by Matthew Arnold (1869)?
- Olya Babydoll Angel - Naked and Innocent Weekly.
- The Black Cube Chronicles: The Private Investigators!
The law that emerged pretended to have its roots in Rome, but the more careful authorities are clear that this was just a conceit to deny the English of their indigenous authorship of their laws. The Celts before them were a herding people who shared the open grazing to all of the villagers who claimed it as their common property.
They had each a piece in the village called a croft, very much private property or "domes". The English adopted this system and adapted it to a more agrarian lifestyle, evolving what would come to be called the "open field" system, which Norman law would slowly erode under the acts of enclosure. But, because the Celtic tradition was husbandry rather than farming, the leaders were not imposing upon the people by restricting hunting of large wild prey to the nobility. Kings were itinerant, expecting the lower nobility to supply their needs as they moved about the countryside.
This requirement evolved the manor system, in which lower nobles built huge manor houses large enough to meet their obligation to the king. But it took on the form we see on Downton Abbey long after this was a practical requirement. But, yes, they gathered in servants from the local community to service the needs of the huge estates. It's not really intrinsic, it's just not their style, at least not since emancipation. And if money is intrinsically toxic to human community, capitalism certainly is. But it is a toxicity necessary to a complex society, though it seems obvious that it can be mitigated by carefully designed conditions.
It should be rendered homeopathic by dilution. But getting lost in ambiguous terms and rhetorical devices, or reducing alternatives to a contrast between Mad Max and Caligula, is unhelpful. As a social order alternate to the one currently in place, anarchy is both tempting and terrifying, the latter mainly because the results of its implementation are ambiguous and we, humans, resent change. Then, anarchy, as defined by Emma Goldman, suggests quite a few inherent problems of its own. If anarchy is defined as a new social order based on liberty and unrestricted by manmade law, then what is the meaning of liberty?
What is the essence of this definition? If we had all the answers about what is right and what is wrong, what is just - in just, what is good, evil - then why would we need any social order? What is the purpose of an alternative social order that is in itself flawed or incomplete, that brings the same problematic as the social order we currently have only with a different face?
And if we don? Anarchy is theoretically possible, but as soon as it is put to practice and institutionalized its intrinsic sense of liberty comes to an end just as it happens in any other social order? Tuesday, February 3, -- PM.
Nice try, I suppose. But it rather misses the point. There is nothing unilateral to freedom. If only everyone, or some critical mass, comes freely? Worth and value was personal, what we do for each other in recognition of what we mean to each other. Hence all the variations on a theme illuminated so well in these discussions. But largely beside the point. Perhaps Pink Floyd was right: "All in all we're just another brick in the Wall". How many laws or bricks are there? Can they even be counted? And what do they all mean? We do have a Supreme Court to interpret these rules.
Do they know how many rules there are and what they all mean? And if we don't all know all the rules and the meaning of all the rules, does that mean we are guilty if we don't live by all the rules? How many bricks are there? Isn't that where we are meant to be, free?
There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Gorbachev, open this gate. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Beliefs become reality. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth.
The wall cannot withstand freedom. Wednesday, February 4, -- PM. It really seems time you noticed this! Without "? Liberty is license or privilege over possessions. Freedom is a response of need. We need each other free if we wish to understand and be understood. There is nothing unilateral freedom is. As such it is liberty equated with freedom, not government per se, that is its enemy.
As for Reagan, he was an atrocity as a president. He invented and promoted the Jim Crow economics we live under today. He negotiated with Iran to keep our people hostage until after the election, in return for a promise of illegal weapons sales. And he stalled the fall of the Soviet Union even as he pretended to seek its ruin. He could easily have come to terms with Gorbachev, but used the Star Wars program as a pretext to scuttle talks. The speech he gave in Berlin was given at a time when Gorbachev was already in separate negotiations with Western Europe to open the Eastern Bloc countries.
The "tear down this wall" remark was just another of Reagan's monumental hoaxes, he knew it was imminent anyway. Free Birds I saw some birds fly by today and wondered why they are free to fly and live as they please and we, mankind, needs to be governed, ruled and controlled? If birds can be free then why can't we? If the innumerable rules we already have can't keep us from destroying ourselves and this planet, are more rules the solution?
How many more do we need to survive? If you believe in bible stories, hmmm, wasn't it a single rule, not to eat a certain fruit that lost paradise?
Had there been no rules, might paradise still be here today? If there were no rules would we live in harmony?
Are rules the problem? Is freedom the ultimate solution we are searching for? It seems to be working for everything else but us. Wouldn't it be nice to try freedom and see. Thursday, February 5, -- PM. Some rules help us keep from bumping into each other. But even as we stop at the stop-sign we are free to critique whether it is needed at that intersection. If that critique had no plausible hope of being heeded we would be less free.
Birds, by the way, all live under a highly developed and strictly enforced ranking system. It's called pecking order. As for me, as attractive as flying without mechanical support may be, I would not trade arms and hands and opposable thumbs for wings and a barrel chest. The first thing you wrote months ago was that the universe is immeasurable which it isn't.
From a man who takes all one this seems strange. But more to the point, it expresses a sense that number gets lost in a more encompassing meaning. Your mistake in this, I think, is that you regard this loss as a mode of induction rather than, as I would argue, reduction. How extensive must the count be before we recognize that there is a more encompassing meaning? The answer is not the most extensive term, but the least. The result is meaning. The least term of time is that differing that can only be described as the lost enumerator.
The least term of time is all the differing it is. But like any loss, it is only the response recognized it not its own and yet of worth is that meaning articulated in the world, however real that loss is. But we need each other free for this completion to the drama of loss and recognition that meaning, and person, is.
List of anarchist communities
There is no freedom alone or unilateral. It is not letting be or being at liberty, it is a need fulfilled in the freedom enabled through that need. Freedom is the product of not being alone in loss. Friday, February 6, -- PM. Monday, February 9, -- PM. Hawking wrote: "philosophy is dead" and that was the end of that. Philosophy is truth and truth will set us FREE! Tuesday, February 10, -- PM. Leafology Socates whilst walking through the park came across his friend Enstein standing in the shade under a tree.
After some greetings Socates asked,? Enstein replied,? I am here doing some very important scientific work scientifically measuring the number of leaves that have fallen from this tree.? For what reason? Socates asked, Einstein answered,? Is Nature measurable? Socates asked? Then asked further,?
Enstein replied? Are you absolutely certain of you measurement? Enstein responded,? As he counted a light breeze came up and flipped a leaf over exposing yet another leaf. Well well well? Enstein smiled and counted again and said,? Would you wager everything you know Enstein that scientifically your measurement is absolutely correct?? Enstein showing some discomfort now said,? I am certain there are 6. And to prove it to you I will right here and now count them again.? As he began to count a bit of a wind came by and blew all of the leaves away, much to Enstein?
Now it was Socates time to smile and ask,? Eistein turned to Socates and said, " hmmm, smart question, is it measure that is in need of measure?? Socates replied,? Michael, You have both Einstein and Socrates quite wrong. Socrates was a Pythagorean. Einstein had a very highly developed sense of humor. Have you ever heard of Michaelson-Morley? Or the Lorentz transformation? By the way, the universe is something like fifteen billion years old, as I recall, and that sets an outer limit of that many light years in radius.
A good deal less, I expect, since it is has almost certainly not expanded that fast for that long. But physics and I parted company, for the most part, many years ago, it was not where my fascination lay. Not sufficiently, at least, to justify the work of getting as good at it as I felt I could have been. If you take offence athiestic assertions, you'll love section of Nietzsche's The Gay Science.
Wednesday, February 11, -- PM. Tuesday, February 24, -- PM. Throughout the discussion, he and Ken and John were selective in the situations they considered, elided over how collective decisions are made in an anarchic society, and did not acknowledge the value of coordination by leaders and the import of the protection of intellectual property. I agree that anarchy is not chaos. I just had the pleasure of spending a week in Bali, and a relatively undeveloped part of Bali.
No traffic signals, limited road space. The "rules" of the road needed no enforcement mechanism -- it was understood that any car or truck could stop in a lane to deliver goods and the cars and scooters behind would pile up until the way became clear. Scooters weaved, safely, in and around. In the week, not only did I not see an accident, or evidence of an accident, but I did not see any dented cars. Of course, speeds were approximately 20 mph so it took an hour to make a trip that in a modern society with ample roads would take half that or less.
How well then does anarchy scale? Worse, neither James nor Ken nor John acknowledge, at least not explicitly, the value of leadership and coordination -- which is the essence of an entrepreneur. There are many goods and services that require considerable knowledge and coordination ability, which requires some authority and hierarchy. In the same vein, it is naive to believe that most innovation occurs by individuals who have an intrinsic desire to innovate.
Sure, artists and inventors love to create and tinker, but without education -- which necessarily builds upon knowledge and skills developed across generations and would be unlikely to be generated let alone protected and disseminated, without an authority to protect. There is little doubt that the most innovative societies -- in engineering, medicine, the arts and music, Which itself is to say that anarchic societies will produce fewer public goods, and basic economic theory and experience show that the private market does not produce enough public goods.
Such a dearth of public goods would prevent each individual from realizing his potential. This analysis is incomplete; omitted are assignments of duties to protect the society from outside attacks. How does an anarchic society determine who risks their "property" or, even if there is no private property, their lives, to defend when an external threat besets the society? Whether that threat be another group of individuals, or something from Nature, such as a snowstorm or hurricane or drought.
Almost certainly, without getting into a semantic discussion, the police in democratic socities that protect civil liberties, are almost always responding to disputes that already exist -- intra-family squabbles, robberies, rapes, What form of justice is meted out to parents who do not vaccinate their children and thus your child, who is too young to be vaccinated, becomes infected? Which leads me to my last point: James never stated the criteria or procedure to arrive at a collective decision. Meting out punishment, resources and time from each individual to be contributed to the production of public goods, Majority rule is only one possible solution method, which still begs the question of who gets to vote; moreover, it is a well-known in economics and political science that majority-rules criterion is not transitive.
Which means that when there are three options, the option that the majority selects, a majority may prefer an option that was not selected! By way of example, even a small group of friends may have difficulty deciding where to go for dinner or what movie to see. Oftentimes, majority rules or some form of reciprocity -- majority rules however may run into the problem stated above, and reciprocity requires that there be a future interaction.
Now, consider a larger group of individuals who are anonymous in that they may not encounter each other in the future. Such reciprocal behaviors are unlikely to arise, and what are the incentives of individuals to form bonds with other individuals when those bonds are so easily dissolved, if the formation of such bonds does not entail obligations? In short, anarchic societies are greatly limited in size, which means that they are incapable of making significant advancements and of protecting the society from many external threats, which together inhibit if not prevent individuals from realizing their potential, which Rawls stated as one of the primary goals of justice.
Even the most basic unit of a society, the family, is almost always hierarchical. Saturday, November 3, -- AM. In an ideal society where all people have a highly ethical and educational background, anarchy would be the obvious way to go. However, societies consist of all kinds of people, most or too many of which do not have these basic personalty requirements enabling them to live in a society of anarchy.
Soonner or later such people will want to depart from agreed principles of co-existence without laws and this is what will cause major disturbances. We have enough people breaking laws as societis are; can we imagine what it would be like if we remove the laws that discourage many people from causing harm to others? Skip to main content. Search form Search. Laura Maguire. Sep 03, Tags anarchism anarchy Democracy political theory. Blog Archive October The Appeal of Authoritarianism.
Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection. A Puzzle About Sacred Values. Self Knowledge on Trial. The Doomsday Doctrine. A Simple Test for Fake News. Postmodernism and the Decline of Truth. How to Think Two Thoughts at Once. JS Mill and the Good Life. Letting Go of Human Nature. Tolerance and Radical Disagreement. A Licentious Lannister? Working for Faith. What Is Reading? Anti-Semitism is Racism. FrancisOnFilm: Shazam! Philanthropy vs.
Authority and Resistance. Wanting to Want for Its Own Sake. Hacking the Brain. Sexy Beasts. Ken's Big Announcement. FrancisOnFilm: Green Book. Your Question: Integrate or Assimilate? Controversy About Climate Denial. Immigration and Multiculturalism. Mind the Gaps! FrancisOnFilm: Minding the Gap. Five Types of Climate Change Deniers. Finding Yourself in a Virtual Fiction. FrancisOnFilm: Aquaman. The Puzzle of the Unconscious. Is Envy Always a Vice? FrancisOnFilm: Brexit. Getting Clear on the Replication Crisis. How Not to Fall Asleep. Freud's Philosophical Challenges. December The Examined Year: — Uncut.
On Morally Condemning the Past. Philosophical Freud. Foucault on Power. The Creative Life.
- List of anarchist communities - Wikipedia?
- Na Trioblóidí.
- Sons of Anarchy - Wikipedia.
- Hot TV Topics.
- Beaches, Blood, and Ballots: A Black Doctors Civil Rights Struggle (Margaret Walker Alexander Series in African American Studies).
- The coming digital anarchy.
- Get A Copy.
- Inspirational Moment.
- MY MAGICAL GARDEN.
- Entangled Realities.
- Im Not Out of Work!.. Im a Writer!!;
- Fourth Grade Math Workbook Vol 3!
- Anarchy (Making of England, #3) by Stewart Binns.
Does Reputation Matter? Anti-Semitism The Wrong Abortion Question. How MeToo Helps Men. Can Reason Save Us? The Philosophy of Westworld. Do They Believe in God? The Psychology of Cruelty. Lessons from Lobsters. Athletics and the Philosophical Life. The Ethics of Algorithms. Failing Successfully. FrancisOnFilm: Mission Impossible. Does Science Overreach? The Truly Beautiful Game. Enlightenment Peddlers. Self-Reliance and the Ethics of Homeschooling. One Person, One Vote? Puppet Philosophers. Why America is not a Nation.
Distortion in Philosophy. Philosophers and the Meaning of Life. The Ethics of Care. Should Robots Be Caregivers? How a Glitch Caused a Crisis. An Antidote to Bullshit. Around 9 P. The show was intelligent and well attended—a palate cleanser after a feast. Last June, Bolton went to work on something much riskier.
In the world of haute couture, punk is the undead. Bolton had been thinking about a punk show for several years, he told me one day last December. We were having coffee in the Patrons Lounge at the Met, at a midmorning hour when nobody else was there. Bolton looks like the perennial English schoolboy.
He is reed-thin, with neatly parted brown hair, and he was dressed that day in a narrow-cut gray suit, a white button-down shirt with the collar points unbuttoned, no socks, and trousers that stopped well above the ankle. Open, friendly, alert, and quick to laugh, Bolton speaks in a surprisingly resonant baritone. In small towns like Blackburn, where I lived, punk was very much about customization, going to thrift stores and army-surplus stores and mixing things together.
Born in , the youngest of three children in a middle-class Catholic family, Bolton harbored no punk-like grudges against the world. He had a sister who was good at art and a brother who cared deeply about sports. I went through a punky stage where I would spike my hair, but I was too clean-cut to pull it off. Whatever I did, I looked preppy.
Eventually, I just embraced that style. He majored in anthropology at the University of East Anglia, in Norwich. He went back to the University of East Anglia, on a full scholarship. Bolton spent eight years in the V. He had always been fascinated with clothes and the psychology of clothes—what they reveal about human evolution and social behavior—and he managed to bring in clothes by Anna Sui, Vivienne Tam, and other Chinese-American contemporary designers.
The V. In his new position, he was able to do exhibitions. Bolton loved the democracy of fashion. We all wear it. The subject was so well received that he returned to it for one of his early shows at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He was in New York on a visit, having dinner with Yeohlee. The Met was the Holy Grail to me, and Harold and Richard Martin, the former curator in charge, had shaped my approach to fashion. They were among the first costume curators who used the present to enliven the past, and the past to inform the present.
Anyway, Harold called me a couple of weeks later, and said he was looking for an associate curator, and was I interested? Am I ready for it? When Bolton arrived, the department was just emerging from a leadership crisis. Harold Koda had left in , to study landscape architecture at Harvard, and two years later Richard Martin died, of cancer, at the age of fifty-two.
Andrew is a scholar, and he loves getting in deep. What I bring to the Costume Institute is a real interest in how to put exhibitions together. That part Andrew got very quickly. Andrew had to get used to this. What struck Bolton was that the clothes of that period were so out of step with the times.
At the V. He did twelve shows in ten years, some in collaboration with Koda. The show got a lot of attention, some of it highly critical. The Met almost never does retrospectives of living dress designers, and a previously scheduled Chanel exhibition, five years earlier, had been cancelled after a public dispute between Lagerfeld and Philippe de Montebello, the director at the time, over curatorial control.
Related Anarchy (Making of England Book 3)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved