Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Reply to Yuri Pines

Reply to Yuri Pines Responses & Replies 387 I would like to express my thanks to the editors of CRI for giving me the opportunity to respond to Yuri Pines's critical review of my book Daoism and Anarchism, and also to Pines himself for pointing out parts of the book he admires and also for pointing out the unfortunate typographical errors and other mistakes in translation and transliteration in the first part of the book and one appendix. I have to say, however, that most of Pines's criticism is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, in that his review somehow fails to mention the main thesis of the book, a thesis that I could be more fairly criticized for repeating excessively throughout every chapter. In this book, my attempt is not to look at antimonarchical critiques of the state in general or at utopian goals of full equality. Instead the book's main thesis is that the basic idea at the root of all types of anarchism is that the state rules for itself when it can, not on behalf of an aggregate of individuals (as in classic liberalism), a complex web of interest groups (à la liberal/pluralism), society http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png China Review International University of Hawai'I Press

Reply to Yuri Pines

Rapp, John A., --
China Review International , Volume 19 (3) – Apr 15, 2012
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/reply-to-yuri-pines-1CsVoRhcIc

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Responses & Replies 387 I would like to express my thanks to the editors of CRI for giving me the opportunity to respond to Yuri Pines's critical review of my book Daoism and Anarchism, and also to Pines himself for pointing out parts of the book he admires and also for pointing out the unfortunate typographical errors and other mistakes in translation and transliteration in the first part of the book and one appendix. I have to say, however, that most of Pines's criticism is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, in that his review somehow fails to mention the main thesis of the book, a thesis that I could be more fairly criticized for repeating excessively throughout every chapter. In this book, my attempt is not to look at antimonarchical critiques of the state in general or at utopian goals of full equality. Instead the book's main thesis is that the basic idea at the root of all types of anarchism is that the state rules for itself when it can, not on behalf of an aggregate of individuals (as in classic liberalism), a complex web of interest groups (à la liberal/pluralism), society

Journal

China Review International – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Apr 15, 2012

There are no references for this article.