Witches always hate people and yet resourceful little girls can win their grudging respect. Witches are always very clever and yet very stupid at the same time, each in very specific ways. They are always tricking people but they can always be tricked. They are fenced around with rules that don’t apply to normal people, but which they can’t break, and if you know the rules you can command them to do what you want, as well as use their great powers at your whim. That is how the stories go, although sometimes they use words other than “witch” for the thing the story is about, such as genie or demon or artificial intelligence.
Unlike Locke, however, the anarcho-capitalists do not find such a state of nature without a common judge inconvenient or uncertain. They maintain that even the minimal State is unnecessary since the defence of person and property can be carried out by private protection agencies. David Friedman sees such agencies as both brokers of mini-social contracts and producers of ‘laws’ which conform to the market demand for rules to regulate commerce. Each person would be free to subscribe to a protective association of his choice, since ‘Protection from coercion is an economic good’.
0-30p: Kontrollü okuyucu 📖
40-70p: Hafif bağımlı 👀
80p+: Geçmiş olsun, kitaplar seni ele geçirmiş 😅
Lawrence Clarkson advocated absolute self-exaltation:
Behold, the King of glory is come
To reduce God, and Devil to their Doom;
For both of them are servants unto Me
That lives, and rules in perfect Majesty
It was the Ranters, whom Winstanley despised, who proved the most consistent libertarians and the true heirs of the Heresy of the Free Spirit. They are the most anarchistic individuals to emerge in the English Revolution. As antinomians, they sought total emancipation from all laws and rules, and advocated free love. They attacked private property and called for its abolition, and rejected all forms of government, whether ecclesiastical or civil.
archeology of thought & linguistic constraints
Foucault's idea of an archaeology of thought is closely linked to the modernist literary idea that language is a source of thought in its own right, not merely an instrument for expressing the ideas of those who use it.
…Foucault begins with the fact that, at any given period in a given domain, there are substantial constraints on how people are able to think.
…what the archaeologist of thought is interested in is a further set of constraints that, for example, make it 'unthinkable' for centuries that heavenly bodies could move other than in circles or be made of earthly material.
Such constraints seem foolish to us. Why couldn't they see such things are at least possible? But Foucault's idea is that every mode of thinking involves implicit rules (maybe not even formulable by those following them) that materially restrict the range of thought. If we can uncover these rules, we will be able to see how an apparently arbitrary constraint actually makes total sense in the framework defined by those rules. He suggests that our own thinking too is governed by such rules, so that from the vantage point of the future, it will look quite as arbitrary as the past does to us.
I didn’t know that this is true so.Be glad that you can recognize it. For you will thus avoid becoming its victim. Madness is a special form of the intellect and clings to all philosophies, doctrinal systems, and theories, but even more to daily life, since life itself is full of craziness—as you call it—and at bottom utterly illogical. Man strives toward reason only so that he can make rules for himself. Life itself has no rules. That is its mystery. What you call knowledge is your attempt to impose something comprehensible on life.
(Delilik, aklın özel bir biçimidir ve tüm felsefelere, doktrinel sistemlere ve teorilere eşlik eder, ama daha da çok günlük hayata; çünkü hayatın kendisi, senin dediğin gibi, çılgınlıklarla doludur ve özünde tamamen mantık dışıdır. İnsan, kendine kurallar koyabilmek için akla yönelir. Hayatın kendisinin kuralları yoktur. İşte onun gizemi budur. Senin bilgi dediğin şey, hayata anlaşılabilir bir şey dayatma çabandır.)
