'A society is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.'
Typically, yes. not necessarily... Don't see your problem with the term Sir!
A society not based on control and force would be based on voluntary association and voluntary action. Most things you do on a day to day basis are structured like this as we speak. Unfortunately there are still (and growing) parts in our lives in which control (through force and the threat thereof) is exercised by those who do not believe in the Non-Aggression-Principle. In the Spanish civil war millions of people lived completely self-organized and made it work very well. Then, of course, the fascists under Franco and the communists handled by the Soviet Union crushed this effectively together. Limitations? No limitations for freedom as far as I can see!
Spanish civil war millions of people lived completely self-organized and made it work very well
why was it called a civil war?
please give me some examples of which you speak.
Anarchism - root Anarchy - the state of no authority, the refusal to recognize authority. Anarchism is a source of fear, not love. Love respects others, anarchy considers all others beneath it. Anarchism is not good, but it is outrageous.
Sorry if I sounded rude, but I started to perceive your way of asking as somewhat condescending. It is possible that I was just being too sensitive there...
I'll be happy to discuss. Just took a look at your blog and the truth is that we would actually agree on most things... as far as I can see. Now it is very late here in the southern hemisphere. I need to sleep. Tomorrow I will check if you actually found something interesting in what I write. My first article on freedom and control for example. The only difference I myself could spot so far in our views is that mine are not purely materialistic. I think that's also the part that put you off about my post in the first place. That would be a great subject for a conversation, Indeed. You have a good day!
As much as I like your quiz, the whole point of the sentence in my original post is to show my way of defining anarchism in a new, thought provoking way. If you dig it, great. If not, fantastic!
What we have now is based on control and thus fear. If instead we would collectively abolish the institutionalized initiation of force, that would be a step towards Love, don't you think? Love grows in the absence of fear.
I agree. It is insane. Insanity means believing everything we think, without being able to take a look at our own mind. We are lost in the mind. Which is just another way of saying we live in fear.
I'm not sure it'd be a step towards love, unless we assert that love and fear are both extremes of a common spectrum. I would place indifference opposite love, personally, and admiration opposite fear.
Fair enough. I find the dichotomy of fear and Love extremely helpful. Another way of seeing it is being open vs. being closed. When you hurt a cell, it shrinks, closes up, trying to protect itself. When you nurture it, the cell grows, opens up. Most people believe hatred to be the opposite of Love. Yet hatred is the most common and obvious expression of fear. I believe that once the fear inside of us is made conscious and confronted, Love is the result. Not Love for someone special, Love as a general attitude towards other beings. Once the fear is gone, there is really no reason not to be open and Loving towards others... And that is the basis for Anarchism. Just my opinion, though.
eh...no.
ararchism has no society.
No idea what 'ararachism' is, but if you can give me a better word for 'living together' please do!
family, clan, tribe, monkeysphere
'A society is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.'
Typically, yes. not necessarily... Don't see your problem with the term Sir!
the problem is the conflation with the word 'love'.
So new problem now. Let's see. The word Love is kinda crucial here, since it is the opposite of fear and the urge to control has its roots in fear.
Ok...tell me how a 'society' that is not based on control would work.
Has there ever been one?
What are the limitations?
A society not based on control and force would be based on voluntary association and voluntary action. Most things you do on a day to day basis are structured like this as we speak. Unfortunately there are still (and growing) parts in our lives in which control (through force and the threat thereof) is exercised by those who do not believe in the Non-Aggression-Principle. In the Spanish civil war millions of people lived completely self-organized and made it work very well. Then, of course, the fascists under Franco and the communists handled by the Soviet Union crushed this effectively together. Limitations? No limitations for freedom as far as I can see!
Spanish civil war millions of people lived completely self-organized and made it work very well
why was it called a civil war?
please give me some examples of which you speak.
Watch this,
Or read George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia.
isn't voluntary association the same as discrimination?
If not then how is it different?
That depends on what you mean by discrimination. Is it discrimination when you choose who you actually spend your time with?
Anarchism - root Anarchy - the state of no authority, the refusal to recognize authority. Anarchism is a source of fear, not love. Love respects others, anarchy considers all others beneath it. Anarchism is not good, but it is outrageous.
No authority and no ruler means only one thing : no accepted initiation of force.
If anarchism invokes fear in you, I strongly suggest you find out more about it!
actually I am an anarchist...or at least I've been called one many times.
Sorry if I sounded rude, but I started to perceive your way of asking as somewhat condescending. It is possible that I was just being too sensitive there...
ME? condescending?
nawwww.
I'll be happy to discuss. Just took a look at your blog and the truth is that we would actually agree on most things... as far as I can see. Now it is very late here in the southern hemisphere. I need to sleep. Tomorrow I will check if you actually found something interesting in what I write. My first article on freedom and control for example. The only difference I myself could spot so far in our views is that mine are not purely materialistic. I think that's also the part that put you off about my post in the first place. That would be a great subject for a conversation, Indeed. You have a good day!
I look forward to meeting you again on the field of verbal combat.
As much as I like your quiz, the whole point of the sentence in my original post is to show my way of defining anarchism in a new, thought provoking way. If you dig it, great. If not, fantastic!
Ok...if you don't want to discuss it that's fine.
Not sure if that's really what it is, but anarchy is definitely better than the trash we currently call society.
Not gonna lie. My newest post is pretty weird.
What we have now is based on control and thus fear. If instead we would collectively abolish the institutionalized initiation of force, that would be a step towards Love, don't you think? Love grows in the absence of fear.
what we have now is insane.
I agree. It is insane. Insanity means believing everything we think, without being able to take a look at our own mind. We are lost in the mind. Which is just another way of saying we live in fear.
what do you mean we whiteman?
I'm not sure it'd be a step towards love, unless we assert that love and fear are both extremes of a common spectrum. I would place indifference opposite love, personally, and admiration opposite fear.
Fair enough. I find the dichotomy of fear and Love extremely helpful. Another way of seeing it is being open vs. being closed. When you hurt a cell, it shrinks, closes up, trying to protect itself. When you nurture it, the cell grows, opens up. Most people believe hatred to be the opposite of Love. Yet hatred is the most common and obvious expression of fear. I believe that once the fear inside of us is made conscious and confronted, Love is the result. Not Love for someone special, Love as a general attitude towards other beings. Once the fear is gone, there is really no reason not to be open and Loving towards others... And that is the basis for Anarchism. Just my opinion, though.
That's a pretty cool opinion overall and I see where you're going with it.
Fear is definitely the basis for most if not all of the crap we see in today's society and is definitely the cause for hatred.
Congratulations @thename! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP