The Electric Commentary

Monday, August 16, 2004

I don't think you understand the concept.

What is wrong with these two sentences:

The voting debate was just one of the topics explored at the three-day North American Anarchist Convergence, which brought about 175 participants to Ohio University.
Some attendees rejected the voting proposal.

Read the whole thing here (Hat tip, Eugene Volokh).

First of all, can anarchists have a meeting (call it a convergence if you like, it is still a meeting)? They discussed an anti-voting proposal. Who made the proposal? How did they decide who got to speak? Did they use Robert's Rules of Disorder?

Second, did the anarchists vote on the anti-voting proposal? I hope so. It seems more likely that some decided to accept it, and some rejected it.

This guy seems really confused:

"Ultimately, those who are voting are either bad anarchists or not anarchists at all," said Lawrence, a "Californian in his mid-40s" who declined to give his last name. "No one can represent my interests. We reject political professionals."

What's that Lawrence? If you vote, you are not an anarchist? That sounds like a rule to me. Are there other rules that you must follow to be an anarchist, because if so, you can count me out.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Amazon Logo