I Want You to be an Anarchist
Let me explain why I want you to be an anarchist.
Anarchism is probably not what you think it is; it is not mass murder, bombs and bazookas, arenas and gladiators, bloodshed, or Mad Max and the Thunderdome. Anarchism is simply the ability to live a life of cooperation without fear of being told how to cooperate.
The word comes from the Greek. It means "Without Rulers." It is true that the term has picked up some nasty connotations. It has come to mean political strife or disorder. However, this misconception of meaning does not resonate with how anarchists think or feel. In reality, anarchists want to be your friend. They believe in compassion and human connection.
Anarchism is not even a political term. It is apolitical. Anarchism is not about building bureaucracies or attempting to coerce people to live a certain way. It is about voluntary interaction and respect of property rights. Anarchists are freedom fiends and connoisseurs of love. They want to rid the world of politics and the horrible suffering they cause.
Anarchists believe you should be able to plant gardens of fruits and vegetables in your front lawn without having to appeal to city codes. They want you to be able to work without a license, without permission from sociopathic social engineers.
You should be able to carry a gun wherever you please so long as you mind your own business. You should be able to collect rainwater and drink raw milk. You should be able to smoke whatever plant you want whenever you want. You should be able to live of your own volition so long as you don't harm anyone. You should be able to do all of these things without having to ask permission.
This is what anarchists want; it is why I want you to be an anarchist.
The philosophy is not about Utopia or some skewed vision of the perfect society. Instead, It is about voluntary interaction and freedom from controlling humans. It is about the I-Thou relationship, about you and I joining together and building rapport.
In the absence of anarchism, destruction, death, bombs and bazookas terrorize everyone, because it is what authority produces. If anything is chaos and destruction, it is the environment created and maintained by status quo politicians.
Let's do away with that. Come to peace. Become free; relate to me without violence.
Discover anarchy.
I am the Psychologic Anarchist, Sterlin. Find me over at www.psychologic-anarchist.com and on Facebook, where we are trying to build more compassionate and loving anarchist communities. We also discuss psychology, therapy, communication, and the many faces of love.
@sterlinluxan. So glad to see you here. I really enjoy your writing on facebook and PychologicAnarchist. Welcome to steemit! hope to see more of you here : )
Hi @xedal, please check my latest post out. I wrote it to you and the other whales. Maybe you will agree with it :)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@steemitpolitics/6rqxnc-to-the-whales-get-your-head-out-of-your-ass-and-vote-good-content-up-you-are-harming-steemit
It looks like my posts are already going to pay off well. It looks like there is going to be a strong incentive to make this one of my primary platforms. And if Steem price rises, this could eventually help support my content creation. Thanks for welcoming me.
I often hear that Anarchism is impossible. The reasons that I'm given vary from group to group, but the essence is the same: We aren't capable of restraining ourselves and contributing to the community without the oversight of a government that can also protect us from outside threats, or threats against our rights.
Never mind that if we were truly incapable of restraining our violent tendencies, logic would support the idea that a government should not be allowed to exist, since violent people would be as attracted to an institution that holds a monopoly on the initiation of violence as a moth would be to a flame, and with much the same result.
I don't think it's impossible. I think it's inevitable. This moment in history is differentiated from all others in that we have a global communications network that is capable of bringing knowledge (read: empowerment) to many more people that ever before. Coupled with the rise of #cryptosociety, we may very well be able to realize a voluntaryist future where increasing number of Terrans are empowered to be their own banker and their own moral compass, in peace and with respect.
Great post. It's always refreshing when the anarchists arrive.
Thanks for the post. I've recently been learning about the history, development and principles behind anarchism. The difference between what you hear from the mainstream media, and the actual philosophical basis and aims of anarchism is quite astonishing.
It's funny how the fears about anarchism (chaos, bloodshed, etc) are exactly what exists under statism, as you mention in the end. Everyone is always on edge about problems with the economy, everyone is on edge about who ISIS will blowup next. Millions of children around the world bombed to death, millions of non-violent Americans locked in a cage. It's just classic psychological projection to say anarchy is chaos.
Nice post.
Solution is one - blockchain! I like your post.
Thank you so much, Antino. And I wholeheartedly agree. Blockchain tech will help push us forward.
Feel free to follow my facebook page, Youtube, and website.
Thanks!
Excellent article brother! Welcome to steemit. I have found this an excellent medium for Cryotoanarchy and philosophy.
Thanks so much Keith. I am finding a warm welcome here.
2.1) you generalise too much: by far not every "social engineer" is "sociopathic". I do not believe, that true anarchists should come out with generalizing statements about any groups of people; these kind of rhethorics are the tools of people of the current establishment and NOT of anarchists,
and
2.2) you may not really understand, how much the freedom of one person very often becomes the detriment of another person. If I had a heart attack, I would not like to be doctored around on by a person, who does not even have the proper licenze to cut me up.
But hey, I gave you an upvote anyway, because you are young, idealistic, not afraid and you are kind of going in the right direction. Just be self-critical enough to review and revise your attitude and your philosophy from time to time and this will go a long way.
Most excellent post, and great points! I would just add that bankers and politicians all go hand in hand. A lot of bankers have their jobs and the environment they manipulate because of politicians. A lot of politicians have jobs post-politics because they scratch the backs of bankers...they are all part of the same community. They work hand in hand to stay on top, and keep the masses down.
I think throughout history we have shown that we are not very capable as a species of respecting each others' property rights without some sort of fear of reprisal. In a society void of poverty with equal opportunities for all, I would probably agree with your sentiment to a higher degree. However, I do not feel that your romanticized view of anarchy is a very accurate portrayal of how situations "without rulers" have played out in the past...perhaps I am misunderstanding something. That is always possible. Personally, I am in favor of decentralization and giving more autonomy to smaller localities. However, I do not believe that the human condition will ever allow us to live without a set of codified rules. Thanks for the post, was an interesting read and I look forward to more in the future.
Let me try to articulate further, since I have been chewing it over for a few moments now...I definitely want the same things that you mentioned in your post--rather, the freedom to do those things, and the freedom for others to enjoy themselves as well. However, being highly social animals the majority of us seem to be predisposed to hierarchy and rules of some sort (this claim is completely based off of my own anecdotal experiences). Basically, I think there are functions that governments should perform...and there are definitely areas of life where their forceful intrusion needs to be curbed. As we evolve both as a species and a society, these circumstances will change--and so will the necessity, or lack thereof, for certain rules.
Nikola, I appreciate your fully fleshed out response here. And I am glad you found my feed so that we can exchange ideas.
Let me address your comment about our nature first. I think that hierarchies and rules may be staple of human society to some degree, but just because a hierarchy exists does not mean it should be compulsive or based on aggressive violence. For instance, Toastmasters, garden clubs, Kiwanis, and other organizations have hierarchies, but these groups are based on voluntary cooperation and not force.
Therefore, why is it that when government's crop up the people within it have authority to compel others to live or die at their command? This is something I believe we can consciously change by acknowledging that other organizations exist that don't employ compulsion. I believe adhering to spontaneous order can achieve these results.
As for your point about rules existing: I agree. Social rules always come into existence, as do rules regarding property ownership. However, "rules" are different from "laws." A rule can exist within many contexts as mentioned, but usually people get a choice to create contracts to live by those rules. In the current society, "laws" are imposed by force and people cannot chose to live by them. Some people claim we have a "social contract" that justifies this, but a "social contract" is not a contract at all. It is a political edict that commands people to obey a territorial government. And again, that is something I believe we can consciously alter or choose to ignore.
Lastly, I am a compassionate anarchist—so I believe that we can change society not by trying to convince everyone of the philosophical weight of each argument, but by attempting to live as emotionally intelligent and as empathetic as possible. But we can discuss this more at a later date.
It is a well thought out argument. People should want to belong to the groups that they are a part of...otherwise, they should not be coerced into their rules. No one should have to follow a law that denies them the opportunity to live their life as they see fit. But what about murder? Rape? Assault? Theft? Industrial pollution? Corporate fraud? These are things that affect not just the party committing the deed, but create a victim as well. Now, I am not one of those people that advocates for 100% security--that is a scare tactic. I would still argue that people need a basic codex in order to understand civilization and the trade-offs inherent to it. That's why we got Hammurabi's code. That's why we got increasingly institutionalized religion, to a certain extent.
I like your ideas, but I wouldn't subscribe to them under the banner of anarchy. Peace, love, tolerance, freedom from government oppression...I can dig it. Completely wiping out the public sector is irresponsible, at best, in my eyes. Again, just my opinion...but I certainly think these are the types of conversations that will move the world forward into a better age, whatever it may look like. I certainly don't profess to know everything...or even much of anything...but it is fun to conjecture.
I like it more libertarianism
Yes...but is there a point where there is too much freedom? For example, do you believe a hospital should be allowed to turn away patients in need of emergency care? Should a factory be allowed to pollute a river, and keep the deleterious side effects and their causes hidden from the impacted residents? There are externalities that cause free markets to fail...that is supposed to be the point of government regulation, to a certain extent, to correct for those externalities.
Should they be allowed to turn away patients in need of emergency care? If you don't think so, then you believe in slavery. You believe in forcing someone to perform some task regardless of whether they choose to do it.
Now, do you or I have to like someone who is a doctor and chooses not to help someone in an emergency? No. And thus, almost certainly no hospital would have the policy of turning away someone who is bleeding to death.
If you give people a little credit, it's easier to imagine a world where you don't need violence and slavery to hold everything together. The things you worry about are a bigger worry now under the statist model anyways (I don't remember the last time I saw a river that wasn't polluted). The solution isn't using violence at arbitrary just because you assume the worst or can't imagine how else people would be motivated. That will inevitably lead to an expansion of power. The only real answer is rejecting slavery in principle, and then the collective genius of free people can begin to solve problems.
Slavery? Slavery, as defined, is 1) the state of being a slave, 2) the practice or system of owning salves or 3) a condition compared to that of slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricting freedom. I suppose you're banking on number 3, as this is some sort of restriction of freedom in your book. But the mental state and physical condition of, for example, an African-American slave working on a plantation, and a hospital director who by law cannot turn away patients, are two very different things. There is no comparison to be made. The analogy is disingenuous at best. As far as liking someone who does these things...withholding money or not purchasing from an entity certainly is a means to "police" them. However, this only works when the population has perfect information. Which they do not... Complicating matters is that fact that the entities we are supposed to be regulating with our wallets, have more resources and information than us on how to keep information FROM us.
Personally sir, I think I give people all the credit they deserve. You talk about imagination. I talk about history. The things that I worry about now would have killed us all had regulation not been enacted. The industrial revolution is what polluted the rivers. Not the government. I never advocated for violence being the solution, or a police state...I believe in the population policing themselves, to a certain extent. But the government as an organ and institution of society will never be abolished because it is necessary for us to fulfill our potential as humans. Maybe the day we become telepathic it won't be, but I don't see that happening any time soon...
If you want to use violence to force someone to perform a job, this is technically exactly what slavery is. It's not "disingenuous" of me just because you don't like it. I didn't claim there's any similarity to the mental state of an African-American slave. (This is an anology you're trying to make; you're being disingeuous.)
Ya, obviously it was industrial growth that caused the pollution. It was industrial growth within a statist system. It went horribly. And it still goes horribly today (this is why people wear those smog masks in many cities, and why climate change is a hot topic). You're not making any kind of argument for why government regulation works better than voluntary licensing would work. You're just being the typical statist who thinks that because we don't want to use violence that we don't want any mechanism to regulate and license.
Law and order can happen without violence. (In fact, it can only happen without violence.) I feel sorry for you if you think we need violence to achieve our potential.
Yes you are right. everything has to be reasonable.
I strongly disagree that anarchism has anything to do with property rights. The two are essentially antithetical, but I'd be happy enough if people would simply stop making the claim that property rights are somehow a part of anarchism....