RE: Anarchy, Anarchists + Personal Paths To Freedom 🏴
Personally I think anarchism is just an idea that will not get anywhere, hell it's been around for nearly two centuries and nothing has come out of it. Of course you can be an anarchist, but for that you would have to go live somewhere where you will be by yourself, because the definition of anarchy is no hierarchies and in the world we live in that is just not possible, just look at one of the statements above, I believe crypto currencies and the blockchain can lead to anarchist society, that is funny, crypto is based on hierarchies the ones who have more are the ones who control it, as for the block chain it also can be controlled, despite the many times I've read about it being hack free, it is being hacked all the time. No, Anarchy is a nice idea but like most nice ideas it is also a chimera.
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?
Holding anarchy as an ideal, influences us to be more resilient, generative, moral people. Holding statism as an ideal stunts growth and retards motivation.
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.'
The Internet + Anarchy + Crypto + Goodwill Toward Men
Has been around about 10 years now.
WE SHALL SEE how well it does my friend, we shall see.
Goodwill has been around for ages, only not all practice it. And besides this goodwill toward men is mostly a biblical precept, if you look into anarchy you will find most anarchists are atheists, I mean how can someone who despises government be ok with a heavenly government?
MIND is like a parachute; it won't work if it's not open!
All ideologies are utopian. To suggest any other ideal than anarchism/self-governance is suggesting that using force is necessary. The idea that you have to in live separate from everyone else if you want to be an anarchist is silly because you are assuming the utilitarian aspects must be achieved in order for an ideal to be lived by. If this was the case, nobody would be living anywhere as all dogmas and collectivist ideologies people hold eventually fail.
I think people get caught up in the "utilitarian trap" as they think it's a requirement of an ideal to be possible for the most amount of people at a given time. Nothing works like that, in actuality, I believe anarchism is the most pragmatic of all utopias.
But you do have to live isolated to be an anarchist, nothig silly in that, in this type of situation you have to be pragmatci, humans are socila animals and anrchism doesn't fit in with a society, because we all either need a leader or hopefully are leaders in either case you are not an anarchist.
Ever heard of philosophical anarchism?
Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought which holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy while not supporting violence to eliminate it.
So how are you going to eliminate the state? Look I see a lot of older people here, most from first world countries who rely on their state pensions to live on, yet these guys are the most enthusiastic anarchists, do you think they are willing to forfeit there pensions as long as government cease to exist? So who is going to bring down the state, manifestos, or a lot of articles on a small social media? Like they say if you're going to talk the talk you've got to walk the walk.
You don't eliminate it, you let it fall; the State comes down on its own. It happens time and time again throughout history.
And time and time the state comes back, you just have to look at history it has been a back to back history of state after state, each with a different ideology you have Egypt, then Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, European kingdoms until the modern day, democracies, communist, socialist etc, every time a state with a government that feeds off of the people shows up, anarchy I think has about 180 years as an idea and it has never passed that stage it is still only an idea. A snail moves faster than anarchy.
Most things you do on a day to day basis are voluntary, not forced. Anarchismus (Voluntarism) aims only at finally getting rid of the force and sanctioned violence still left in our lives. The world is way more Anarchist than it seems, friend.