... The article is O.K.; certainly, it's better than immigrant-bashing or pro-Border Patrol articles. But, in the interest of constructive criticism, I'd say

... Well, there is making sense, and there is making sense, isn't there? There are many kinds of "making sense" other than some sort of generic naturalism

... Jeff, Is that how you normally use the word "reasonable"? I mean, if you say that someone has a reasonable opinion about the age of the earth, or the

Anonymous,

So, just so we're clear, your primary complaint against ALL is our acronym? If we had maintained the same attitude towards communist Anarchism, but chosen to call ourselves, say, the Alliance of Left-Wing Market Anarchists or League of Individualists, Mutualists, Agorists, Et Cetera, rather than "Alliance of the Libertarian Left," you wouldn't be complaining about this?

Anon: This can mean only one thing: ...

Oh, I doubt that.

Anon: the ALL does not consider anarcho-communists to be of the libertarian left,

I have no idea what the ALL hive mind considers anarcho-communists to be, but I can say that I think the terms "libertarian" and "left" have many common uses, and that among them there is a very long-standing sense of "libertarian left" that does encompass anarcho-communists. But ALL's name was not selected in order to suggest an alliance among absolutely everybody who could be said to be "of the libertarian left", in that one particular sense of the term.

Do you also complain that the Libertarian Workers' Group didn't actually include all libertarian workers, but rather limited itself to workers who were not only libertarian, but also syndicalist and communist?

Lorraine: Now I finally finally see why it is this market socialism leaves a funny aftertaste.

Well, O.K. Just for the record, you shouldn't take my formulation of these things as a definitive statement of what people who believe in "market socialism" believe in. I'm a weird guy with idiosyncratic positions, in what is already a weird fringe movement. I'm happy to defend my own take on the matter, but it may not be representative of anyone else's understanding.

Lorraine: I consider hierarchy a form of aggression.

O.K., so what significant differences do you think that this reversal of the formula makes?

Do you think that there are other, different forms of aggression which are non-hierarchical? If so, what are they?

(Just to briefly explain myself, the reason I listed aggression as "a form of" hierarchy is because I think there are other forms of hierarchy which aren't aggressive. As an Anarchist, I object to all forms of hierarchy; aggression among them.)

Do you think that it affects the kinds of tactics that can legitimately be adopted in the effort to resist forms of dominance which I would have classified as oppressive, exploitative or vicious, but not as physically aggressive (e.g. racist hate speech, authoritarian "management" of workplaces, sexist paternalism or double-standards, manarchist glorification of movement cred through street violence, etc.)? If so, what kind of tactics do you think it makes legitimate, that would not be legitimate if these were not being classified as "aggressive"?

Or is there some other kind of difference this makes, which I'm missing?

Neil:

I’m assuming this was at the university due to the original question, but I am aware that there are elevators elsewhere in the world, …

Elsewhere in the world, maybe, but not elsewhere in Auburn, Alabama. Town doesn’t specialize in tall buildings.

(I lived in Auburn for about 10 years growing up, and in all seriousness I can’t remember even a single time I rode an elevator anywhere in town other than on Auburn University campus.)

... Jeff, What do you mean by "reasonable" here? Normally when we talk about more or less "reasonable opinions," about, for example, the age of the earth or

Nobody before the 19th century promoted consistent laissez-faire on what we would recognize as either libertarian grounds or formulations.

Really? How’s that?

Everything is a bulwark for the state. People are naturally inclined towards this sort of stuff.

Well, I don’t know what range of things “this sort of stuff” is supposed to encompass. If you’re claiming that people are naturally inclined towards statism, if that were true, it would seem odd that people have been around for about 500,000 years, but have only had states, as far as anyone can discover, for about 13,000 years (and nation-states for only about 400 years). If that’s what people are naturally inclined towards, then the overwhelming majority of human existence has been dominated by the unnatural.

... Dan, Let's say that somebody shows you a Velasquez, and, looking at how carefully he painted his scenes -- the beads of water on jugs, or the glassy-eyed

... He published two full-length books within his lifetime -- the _Tractatus_ and a spelling dictionary, _Word-Book for Public Schools_, that he put together

... O.K., but isn't it belaboring the point at this point in the conversation? It's understood that you think that considering certain sorts of things about,