You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism
- is there a reason you have decided to define anarchism in such a way so as to exclude anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists? 2. Anarchsits don't oppose "Social control over individuals" per se, we rather oppose the monopolization of the use of physical force in a given geographical area to an entity identified as the State. We oppose the initiation of physical force over others. I can tell you right now, that misrepresenting your opposition from the word go will make your entire soon to be "espousing" article wrong. 3. In order to address most anarchist theories adequately, you will have to address morality, as most anarchist theory is built around morality. By saying you won't address morality is to say nothing more than that you will engage in complete sophistry. If you want to be taken as a serious philosophical thinker, then you should cease and desist from using sophistry.
I feel as though specific anarchic schools of thought employ much more nuance in their anarchic philosophies that I could only disagree with points on a case-by-case basis. I'm also under the impression that the general crypto-anarchy espoused on Steemit and in cryptoland, refers to informal permutations of individualist anarchism.
2 No not really. Certain anarchic schools of thought don't even subscribe to morality.
For example, the prominent anarchist Max Stirner .
"According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of individuals is their power to obtain what they desire,[187] without regard for God, state, or morality" source