<p>so. I've been exploring CC a little more and I found a section devoted entirely to essays. (don't laugh...this was a shock to me.) and so, I'm going to devote my critiquing to people who need it for something other than amusement (sorry galoisien.) and I think you may want to read this:</p>
<h1>1 brought you to mind.</h1>
<p>well it's not just amusement! I find it necessary to locate weaknesses I can't perceive myself directly (because of the bias of being the author and all). </p>
<p>And yar, I've read that already. ;) I'm not particularly concerned about being ripped off after I have submitted them -- the concern I believe, is someone stealing the idea before you've already submitted the essay to the adcom. Anyway I was just trying to replicate the Chicago Essays thread in here. It seems like a rather unpopular idea apparently.</p>
<p>I agree but I also thought db123's was trite. All that gleaming in the moonlight and bright crimson blood reminded me of a script for an episode of SVU or something.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my wish is to see solutions created based on the nonauthoritarian association of citizens.
[/quote]
That would be known as a free market...</p>
<p>
[quote]
force them to change their policies without the need for an overbearing State, or violation of economic freedoms.
[/quote]
This is also part of a free market. No one is going to sell with zero demand. I think your ideas are interesting, and your essay is not bad, but the label "anarchist communism" is a bit odd at best. It seems like capitalism with an enlightened public is what you are after...</p>
<p>And if you suggest that the public cannot be enlightened under capitalism, well, then you require some authoritarian presence, and there goes anarchism. </p>
<p>That's just me though, and I'm rather libertarian leaning.</p>
<p>That would be a "just social contract". Perhaps a "culturalised free market." Ultimately culture is more important than whether you officially have a planned or market economy. A free market with an ignorant public is arguably less free than a semiplanned economy with a very enlightened public. </p>
<p>Communism is very much dependent on the culture more than what system it officially runs under; it is culture after all, that determines what society demands.</p>
<p>Right libertarianism /anarcho-capitalism is a lesser evil than authoritarian leftism, because left libertarianism can evolve from a right libertarian framework, but it's much harder to do to same from authoritarian leftism.</p>
<p>In fact, in many discussions about left libertarianism, many left libertarian theorists have clarified it's not really so much differing from right libertarianism, but rather having different emphases on what libertarianism is supposed to accomplish. I get turned off by people whose only real reason for identifying with libertarianism is to adopt an ideology that makes them feel comfortable about having such a large fortune and maybe to evade taxes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All that gleaming in the moonlight and bright crimson blood reminded me of a script for an episode of SVU or something.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not quite familiar with law and order, but from my limited knowledge, it's an extremely successful show. :)</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents =). I got in btw.</p>
<ol>
<li> What work of art, music, science, mathematics or literature has surprised, unsettled or challenged you, and in what way? Please limit your response to half a page, or approximately 250 words. And please use the space bar instead of the tab key to create paragraph indentations.
Post/Edit Response </li>
</ol>
<p>When I studied discrete mathematics with my math teacher, I came across this question one day. It states that, in a certain town, there is a male barber who shaves all those men, and only those men, who do not shave themselves. Question: Does the barber shave himself?
Answer: Neither Yes nor no.
The world recognized this puzzle as the Russell’s Paradox, a discovery that suggested that math is sometimes not as crystal-clear and definitive as it seems. In fact, with rigorous mathematical proof, mathematician can prove that math itself is not free of contradictions. This concept really unsettled me and the contemporary mathematicians —it in essence shakes basic foundation of mathematics. If mathematic theories can contradict themselves, then any particular theory, model, and system has a chance to be erroneous, and if this statement is true, then math itself can be flawed and wrong in the roots. I think at this point, the upsetting and ruinous effect generated by this paradox makes sense. Imagine everything you have learned, once you considered absolutely indisputable and logical, may be futile and mistaken. Would you still have the determination to continue your study?
I say yes, so did the mathematicians after a short period of agony. Math is an attempt to explore the ultimate truth of universe that existed since day one. This attempt can be lengthy, can be arduous, and certainly can be wrong; but one should not fail to realize that, after all, every study is an effort to enlighten, to educate, and to gratify the minds with knowledge and values. There is nothing futile about this.</p>
<p>I wrote about personal background and how that made me the academic student I am today, and how I had to overcome obstacles… It was difficult, but I did it.</p>