Reply
Tue 11 Oct, 2011 01:21 pm
Hi.
I am an anarchist.
I believe that governing people against their will is immoral, and that this is the essence of anarchism.
Also, I believe that a democracy is not a government by the will of the people, even though it claims it is.
First, people do not have a choice _whether_ to have a government at all.
Second, most people think that one _must_ have a government, or "things will go bad". So the actual reason why people actually have a government at all, is not their wish, but some desire to be "ruled".
If people would have a _real_ choice whether to have a government, and _of its nature_, then it could not be called a government at all, since no governing would take place, but mere agency for very specific actions.A person could sign a part of the contract, but not all. For example, a person who doesn't want to pay taxes - wouldn't, and would not get the services.
Furthermore, an unlimited number of such agencies could exist.
Also, the "social contract" would be made _explicit_, and _personal_ : a person would have the right not to sign a social contract, the contract would be time-limited, and its text would be known.
------------
YET, I am extremely confused about my ethics. I would like to act always on principle, but how do I do it? Avoiding any government services at all costs would be suicide.
Also, I wish to pursue higher education, which uses taxes - money taken from people without their explicit will.
AND, I can't afford it on my own.
Sam
@samr,
The fundamental error of anarchism is the failure to understand that "freedom" is relative (as indeed,could be argued, is morality !). My freedom (to play loud music say) can curtail your freedom (to sleep say). This means that the
rules for the communal living essential to our species are always socially regulated, ideally by negotiation. Governments serve to embody that principle of regulation whether or not negotiation is adhered to.
@fresco,
Another fundamental error of anarchism is the implicit assumption that the majority of humans, left with no central governing organization, will act in a sane and responsible manner, respecting the rights of others etc. etc. That, I suggest, is an absurd assumption.
@samr,
no goverment = choas = no protection for the weak = survival off the fittest = no more overpopulation = good ?
no protection for weak = no protection for smart = ....
i onces was thinking the same way but i now believe that global teaming and birth control might be a better answer altho i dont have an answer on what to with the increasingly ageing population ( = less ppl working, more ppl to take care off that cant work ) when birthcontrol in firmly inforst
sorry for my english
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
The fundamental error of anarchism is the failure to understand that "freedom" is relative (as indeed,could be argued, is morality !). My freedom (to play loud music say) can curtail your freedom (to sleep say). This means that the rules for the communal living essential to our species are always socially regulated, ideally by negotiation. Governments serve to embody that principle of regulation whether or not negotiation is adhered to.
You clearly know nothing of anarchism.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
The fundamental error of anarchism is the failure to understand that "freedom" is relative (as indeed,could be argued, is morality !). My freedom (to play loud music say) can curtail your freedom (to sleep say). This means that the rules for the communal living essential to our species are always socially regulated, ideally by negotiation. Governments serve to embody that principle of regulation whether or not negotiation is adhered to.
****. I was gonna say that. (only not as well)
@samr,
samr wrote:YET, I am extremely confused about my ethics. I would like to act always on principle, but how do I do it? Avoiding any government services at all costs would be suicide.
Outwardly conform to society's rules while continually striving for their ultimate destruction. Works for me.
@joefromchicago,
Quote:You clearly know nothing of anarchism.
...except perhaps its more blatant sociopathic manifestations like the recent UK city riots.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Quote:You clearly know nothing of anarchism.
...except perhaps its more blatant sociopathic manifestations like the recent UK city riots.
That's rather like saying "I nothing of capitalism except perhaps its more blatant sociopathic manifestations like Enron and Bernie Madoff."
@fresco,
In an Anarchial society that **** woulda been dealt with on day one.
I don't think Anarchy means no one's going to react to anti social behavior.
@wayne,
yup.
not the way it would work in my anarchy...
@Rockhead,
Truth be told, I don't think anarchy would last more than a day or two before tribalism would begin to take hold.
If some of you closet anarchists can explain to me what you are about other than negativity to "authority" I'd love to know. It all seems pretty adolescent to me and a far cry from a constructive active resistance movement to "oppression".
@wayne,
wayne wrote:Truth be told, I don't think anarchy would last more than a day or two before tribalism would begin to take hold.
I don't know of any human culture on the planet that exists in total anarchy. Every single one of them from the beginning of recorded history has quickly evolved toward some type of social control system. Groups of organisms that need each other cannot exist in a state of total anarchy. I'm not even sure something can even be defined as a biological "group" without some form of cohesive structure.
@rosborne979,
I suppose if everything grew on trees, then anarchy might work. I just don't think anarchists are thinking very far ahead.
What we could use, though, is a bit more autonomy at the local level.
@wayne,
Anarchy is an oversimplified reaction to a complex problem.
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
If some of you closet anarchists can explain to me what you are about other than negativity to "authority" I'd love to know. It all seems pretty adolescent to me and a far cry from a constructive active resistance movement to "oppression".
Considering how many times you've enjoined me to read Wittgenstein, or Gurdjieff, or Kosko, or whoever else you happen to be thumping your tub about that week because you couldn't possibly explain their positions to me, it gives me great pleasure to say: "look it up yourself."
@joefromchicago,
Fine. I'll take that as a "don't know".
@rosborne979,
Good point on oversimplification. The kaleidoscope of "movements" covered by the term seem to have only one thing in common...dissatisfaction with prevailing "rules". It seems that anybody from a Naples(Italy) taxi driver to a 70's hippie can wear the badge "anarchist".
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Fine. I'll take that as a "don't know".
That's how I've always taken it when you've said it to me.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace