You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism
I'm assuming from this post that you are against anarchism because at the very least its impractical? That's where I'm at. But when you say morality is arbitrary, I have to disagree. I think a society with no human sacrifice is better than a society with blood sacrifice because blood sacrifice is 'wrong.' I think moral judgement is unavoidable, and while our moral sense is not infalable, it can also act as a good guide, like when we are disgusted by pedofiles and serialkillers.
Well, at the very least, notions of morality don't need to be appealed to for pro-Anarchy arguments to hold.
Generally speaking, my beef with Anarchism is the arbitrary significance placed on centralized government.
And an 'oppressed vs oppressor' perspective of centralized government which masks the multi-layered reality of how governance systems emerge.
It also seems to ignore how individuals will oppress others if they don't magically follow voluntaryism themselves, as well as how they can do so without even realizing it.
Exactly!
How do you not follow voluntaryism?
By forcing or coercing people into doing things? I believe the distinction about voluntary may be missed by you two.
Earlier satire even said all human interaction is already voluntary....
My problem with Anarchism is that it ignores the organic waystates developed, and the forces in the world that make nation states viable and depending on your political views, desirable.