thornyd Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 I looked at some of the images that came up in google, and it looks like a really cute book
ribuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Wow, what an amazing book! Quite wonderfully subversive.
Mellony Posted May 30, 2013 Author Posted May 30, 2013 I ordered it from Amazon...I'll let you know what my kids think of it!
Jose Perez Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Definitely not anout anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not "no rules". From the book's cover: "After encountering the lively little anarchist in John and Jana's delightful A Rule is To Break, I will always remember the playful little devil with a mind of her own. A children's book on anarchy seems somehow just right: an instinctive, intuitive sense of fairness, community, and interdependence sits naturally enough with a desire for participatory democracy, feminism, queer rights, environmental balance, self-determination, and peace and global justice."--Bill Ayers, author of To Teach: The Journey in Comics and Fugitive Days" It's like some sort of postmodernist look at anarchy. A sad reminder of how confused the world is.
Jose Perez Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 A child lashing out at her "loving" parents, like I often see out and about... that's the kind of illustration picture I'd like to see in a book about anarchy for children.
ribuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Definitely not anout anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not "no rules". Well, "no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules".
ribuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Here's another children's book:ABC's of Anarchy It's Creative Commons licensed (CC-BY-SA) and is available in print or as a free PDF download.
Jose Perez Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Definitely not anout anarchy. Anarchy means no rulers, not "no rules". Well, "no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules". What's your point? The book in question clearly does not refer to rules in this way (choice). It also seems that moral rules (government) are an exception in it. Moral rules (like don't steal) are not chosen either. There are no unchosen positive obligations.
ribuck Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 The book in question clearly does not refer to rules in this way (choice). Are you sure? Have you seen the whole book? (I haven't). The part you quoted earlier is just a commentary by some guy. It may or may not accurately reflect the book. Moral rules (like don't steal) are not chosen Of course those rules are chosen. I choose not to steal. A robber chooses to steal.
Jose Perez Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 The book in question clearly does not refer to rules in this way (choice). Are you sure? Have you seen the whole book? (I haven't). The part you quoted earlier is just a commentary by some guy. It may or may not accurately reflect the book. Well, if you reject the interpretation I give based on the information I have seen and the arguments I provide then I guess you'd think I am wrong even if I had read the whole book 3 times. I don't think many editors would include blurbs that contradict the thesis of the book. The illustration about painting the TV is also not anarchy (idiocy?) in the sense of respect for property rights or being "civil", as another comment reads; together with the child being referred to as "little devil" or "Wild Child" it doesn't seem that they understand anarchy as anything much different than the traditional dysfunction within a statist or authoritarian paradigm. It seems to me more like a book for parents: "parent, listen to punk rock and let child break your tv and you will strengthen your status quo". They seem to think that children somehow lack a natural ability to be independent and self-determined, which is completely mistaken. I also don't think the likelihood is that the writers have much an ability to empathise with children and avoid projecting their own "poor little thing" feelings onto them, which further supports what I am saying. Still, I am happy to admit my assessment might well be wrong, as I have not read the book. Look forward to anyone who reads it posting more info here in the future. Moral rules (like don't steal) are not chosen Of course those rules are chosen. I choose not to steal. A robber chooses to steal. You mistake choosing rules for choosing behaviour. First of all, moral rules are not chosen because they are universal. How do you choose the rule "thou shalt not steal"? You are bound by it whether you like it or not – and subject to its enforcement; what you choose is the behaviour to steal, not the rule. Secondly, when you said ""no rulers" is equivalent to "no unchosen rules"", you are clearly referring to rules that can be chosen – as in contracts entered into voluntarily that prescribe positive obligations – which has nothing to do with (universal) moral rules that prescribe – if valid as per UPB – negative obligations (don't steal).
Recommended Posts