Off topic, but I feel like saying it here. I believe our political views are closer than you may think. It might be fun to have an actual political discussion about e.g. anarchism in a another thread. Without silly generalizations and references to simple “isms”. After all, and as I’m sure you know, even “anarchism” has a whole bunch of different interpretations or meanings.
I recommend Michael Malice’s new book “The Anarchist Handbook”. It’s a collection of essays of a diverse range of anarchists (across the spectrum). Just got it a few days ago and it’s quite good.
Anarchism in its purest sense is not accepting any monopoly power. People get caught up on the political and practical aspects, but at its core it is about freedom of association at every level. Imo, it is hard to argue against that being a good thing.
However, the creeping acceptance of ‘some state’ is often its undoing. As soon as you start accepting some monopolies and not others, you’re into the realm of politics and picking who needs to be taxed and for what. That is a slippery slope of arguing about left vs right wing ideologies, which is ultimately subjective and personal in preference.
Arguing how anarchism can work without a state is much more interesting. When freedom of association is undeniable and voluntary interactions are a must, it is an interesting topic of discussion. The biggest being how you stop a new state being formed again, likely by those who benefit from extracting protection money, etc.
It is hard to argue against the purity of anarchism, but practically it is hard to achieve, even if you can get people to engage in an honest debate.
I was specifically recommending that book in the what’s up today thread as it was what’s up for me today. It wasn’t meant as a reply to you @Sotros25
We disagree from the start. Anarchism means literally “Without Rulers”. Monopolies of control can be over resources and not over people, so the term is not specific enough.
A single set of rulers presents a monopoly on rules too. I’m happy not to count dancing angels on pinheads though. The wider debate is much more interesting to me.
I have two thoughts on that.
The first is that for most of our day to day lives we live in anarchy (unless maybe you are in a military unit). Our transactions are interfered with by the State in the form of taxation (unless you trade on the black market or barter), but otherwise we are seeking mutually beneficial exchanges with others. So to my mind, a fair degree of anarchy is easy to achieve in our day to day lives.
Hence, and secondly, the main difficulty is achieving greater and greater levels of anarchy as in so doing we are seeking to push out the controlling and manipulating faction of society … but where are they going to go?
I look to evolution - memetic and genetic, to provide the technology that will assist in moving humanity forward. It’s the reason I was interested in SAFE in the first place - real anonymous networking and money gives people more options to exchange freely with each other and that will push the envelope of anarchy.
You are a mod, this don’t have a
direct relation to the SAFE-network and don’t belong in the community section. Do the right thing as a mod and put it in off-topic.
The Community category is described as follows:
“Topics relevant to the SAFE Network community.”
Backseat moderating is not encouraged. See:
But as you wish. Since “anarchism” can be considered a political topic, I’m moving this thread to Off-topic.
A great and correct logic conclusion, good job.
I acted in the most correct way I know to make the development of the future Internet as best it can be, you did the same, I could not ask for anything more.
I’d love to see the first rule of anarchism be think globally and act locally. Hearing one set of people imply another’s is the lesser of two evils is ridiculous as members of both walk by sick people laying in the streets,
Not having rulers doesn’t specify anything about walking past sick people. It is left up to the individuals involved to decide and/or the groups they freely associate with.
Freedom of association just means you can’t force people to do one thing or another. It is up to them and their conscience. It means no one can tell others to care or not care about one thing or another. It is about giving people the freedom to disagree or agree with others.
The ‘chain of supply’ is something I believe is a really important thing to consider with all goods and services in the world - which is directly associated with ‘think globally act locally’…
It is often said that Anarchy is without rulers not rules - some codes of conduct are necessary as humans seem to differ massively in their capacity for empathy and compassion. I think there is a delineation between positive and negative Anarchy - not in the same way as liberty - freedom from vs freedom to - but constructive vs destructive.
Although common-law was never designed to emancipate - adherence to the basic tenets, derived from natural law, whilst declaring personal sovereignty and dismissing the need for a monarchy or any form of self elected hierarchy - is a potentially viable route to positive, constructive anarchy emerging in practice…
That said, if humans arrived at the point of genuine cooperation with one another and the rest of the planet - political ideology would be rendered obsolete anyway. Thus far the majority have not been given the opportunity to work together as it threatens the dominance of a self interested elitist minority. There is some chaos ahead, but its architects are under the impression that negative, destructive anarchy will ensue. I hope this is proven to be a serious underestimation of humanity in a crisis - that we will reject the ‘rulers’ but not one another. There is great strength in unified numbers…
I thought this wikipedia entry on ‘Anarchist Law’ provided an interesting overview of the various and often conflicting viewpoints on rules within the fairly divided anarchist community…