You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchy, Anarchists + Personal Paths To Freedom 🏴
Mmp! Great push-back, @gduran. Okay, let's say you're right... anarchy IS a chimera. One big, fat illusion with no pragmatic potential. I don't believe that, of course, but just to explore your reality... let's say anarchy is a pipedream... my response to that is:
Who/what do we become while sustaining a belief in the possibility of anarchy? How does a person behave, when they have accepted full responsibility for themselves? What is the character like of someone who honors the Non-Aggression Principle?
But are those the only choices?
Yes. None other!
Haha, of course there are other choices.
I'd love to see how they stand up to those questions, too!
Does anarchy hold a non aggression principle? I don't think so, in fact the history of anarchy is a history of aggression, McKinley is an example, but better look at this: http://listverse.com/2014/05/04/10-acts-of-anarchist-terrorism-that-shocked-the-world/, no anarchism is not a peace loving movement, like I told you anarchists can live an anarchist life but only if they are really separate from everybody else. You see you can have ideas but the events that can be the outcome of these ideas are the problems, you present only the bright side of things, the ugly parts are left out.
There is no anarchism without the non-aggession-principle. Why? Because initiation of force is the basis for ruling others. No rulers means no initiation of force. I think anarchism is probably not what you think it is. From your own link:
'Proudhon himself did not advocate violence, and few anarchists were bomb-throwers. But desperate individuals heard the propaganda and took it upon themselves to strike against entrenched privilege.'