Altruistic Anarchism

I hope u r right. Altruism is too dangerous.





U exhort to robbery ?



That is not a sentence.






That is a good thing.
A global government 'd degenerate into a despotism,
with little hope of emancipation.
Ike will not come riding to the rescue.





Our own country has NO JURISDICTION to be helping any other societies
and that woud constitute embezzlement of any funds applied to that purpose.

Long live laissez faire free enterprize !





DaVid

Altruism is a luxury.
If you have the choice of giving your food away or starving to death, the "altruistic choice" isn't necessarily the nobler choice.

Say you have two people who are both altruistic. Only one of them is capable of finding food, but he only finds enough to sustain one. What would happen if he gave his food to the other man, if he was selfless? That man would survive until the one who found the food starved to death, then he would starve too. Wouldn't it be better if the man who was able to find the food kept it for himself?

But we are not two men with food for only one. We are billions, and there is enough to go around, so the example above doesn't really fit the actual state of things. But it illustrates that it isn't as simple as being selfless rather than selfish.

But are there any people who call themselves altruists? Can we use the word like that?
I think even having the term "altruism" is suspicious. Practicing concern for the welfare of others is deeply rooted in most of us. It is a criteria for the survival of our species, and if it were not so, we would not be alive.

The problem might be a lack of information and options. Most people would do right by strangers in the third world if they were presented with viable options and good information.

ur conceptions of words are false according to mines

anarchism is not wht u think to mean here, having no rules to respect in what u do or want to achieve, is never related to hate everyone else, on the contrary

anarchy as absence of rules in moves prone freedom truth so wherethere the space is certainly a true reality relatively of course but never through rights abuse
anarchy is the philosophy kind that claim rules being evil reasons, bc rules means interests that get it all so what was meant cannot b so reality is never

if u were real in what u mean objectively u would know that seeing another starving is about ur own death, u would know that the space is absolutely but of course each point is relative but there cant b such opposite on the same spot

now for altruism also false concept according to mine

altruism is existence that point smthg else existing, but it must b else to b true
in opposition to centralism which is existence that point its own surroundings and relative relations with else

it shows there how altruism is close to anarchism in truth references which explain why u had that thought sentence end in mind while being honest in not meaning smthg urself

when centralism is obviously close to monarchy, as if everything is according to the king relations realities with its own wills or spacial needs

when u want to exist then u would assume urself being the will, while urself exist wether u want or not it doesnt change the fact of being
the same for else or others, they exist wether u point them or not doesnt change their fact of existing and could point u where u never thought about them

so reality happen as existence exist freely, then conscious is to recognize objective intelligence that justify things ways of interactions as the base of freedom reality constant perspectives of being still like so relatively true