▲ 372 ▼ agile is far left too. I will die on this hill (feddit.uk) submitted 2 years ago by manicdave@feddit.uk to c/memes@lemmy.ml 169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] futatorius@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] linja@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) That's a pretty weak definition. "Legitimate" especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) "accountable". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy: The Constitution should be interpreted with "originalism" or at the very least venerated Police sacrifice X, therefore it's okay if they do extralegal Y I'm not saying there aren't systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It's that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie "our founding fathers were smart people") are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] linja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think I almost understand what you're getting at. If I do, it's uncodifiable. You can't draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago If I do, it’s uncodifiable Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today. a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] linja@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) That's a pretty weak definition. "Legitimate" especially is a vacuous term, and every form of democracy ever proposed is (theoretically) "accountable". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy: The Constitution should be interpreted with "originalism" or at the very least venerated Police sacrifice X, therefore it's okay if they do extralegal Y I'm not saying there aren't systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It's that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie "our founding fathers were smart people") are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] linja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think I almost understand what you're getting at. If I do, it's uncodifiable. You can't draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago If I do, it’s uncodifiable Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today. a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Sure, but is that how we talk about our institutions? Things I hear that buck anarchism while supporting American democracy: The Constitution should be interpreted with "originalism" or at the very least venerated Police sacrifice X, therefore it's okay if they do extralegal Y I'm not saying there aren't systems of accountability that legitimize various institutions. It's that the stories we tell to legitimize an institution comes in many different flavors, and those based on authority from power/position (ie "our founding fathers were smart people") are not accepted by anarchists. Edit: Imagine how different our legal framework would be if it reflected that mentality? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] linja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think I almost understand what you're getting at. If I do, it's uncodifiable. You can't draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago If I do, it’s uncodifiable Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today. a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] linja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think I almost understand what you're getting at. If I do, it's uncodifiable. You can't draft an organisational system with a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago If I do, it’s uncodifiable Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today. a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago If I do, it’s uncodifiable Things can still be codified and justified without an appeal to power. Lots of software is written that way today. a clause that no one is allowed to use logical fallacies to defend it. I don't understand why that would be a necessity or desired. permalink fedilink source parent