Anarchy is not the Entire Answer. It Really Begins with Ahimsa

in anarchy •  last year

Today I find myself re-reading the top post of the day from @dantheman. It was well thought out and I felt encouraged to hear it from "The Man". The point about privatized costs and socialized benefits really explained that dilemma clearly. He explains what it is that keeps us from making the fundamental changes that are needed to create a beautiful abundant reality for everyone. From there, Dan basically outlines the future and the way we will get there - through non-violence. The last paragraph in his post touches on the main problem and the solution.

The Problem

Part of the problem is that even though most of us know that non-violence is the answer, we have somehow given up on that as a real possible solution. It is true that when a powerful and violent entity enters a peaceful game they have the power to take it over. And this seems to be what has happened to the United States and really the whole western world by banking cartels and multi-national corporations with governments acting as enforcers and wielding incredible power over resources and the course of human events.

This, however, does not mean that peace cannot overcome violence. It means that our focus must continually be on peace if we are to create a system of peaceful cooperation that cannot be overcome by a system of violence. More than that our focus must be on compassion. Sure, we must use all of our faculties including our ability to reason, but if we continue without a focus on compassion, we will be unable to create a truly peaceful reality.

The Solution

It is only through spreading these peaceful ideas that we can achieve our goal. These ideas are actually powerful forces that are coming into our collective consciousness and are spreading because people like Dan Larimer read books from people like Eckhart Tolle. These people are sharing profound realizations and shattering belief systems with concepts that are really so simple that we have forgotten them from when we were little children.

Some how as we grew up, many of us were molded into profit seeking machines for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our countries. We know that we rely on interdependent relationships with each other, yet we still continually search for a way to have power or advantage over our neighbor. If we were to love our neighbor as ourself we would immediately overcome all the problems that cause great suffering in our world.

Can we Actually do This?

I also found myself considering Rick Falkvinge's third in a series of posts on a Simplified Taxless State. Another article that I thought was well thought out and an interesting line of thinking. In the comments @jrcornel pointed out that it basically sounded like a "state reset button" @falkvinge replied to the comment with a question - "Even if it is: if you had a State Reset button, would you not push it?"

A question not posed to me, but one that I would like to answer. Actually @jrcornel had a pretty good answer, which was - "Possibly, as long as it doesn't interfere with the technological explosion that has coincided with it the first time." Personally, I would be tempted to push the reset button as well. But, to give him credit, Falkvinges ideas and articles are about more than pushing a reset button. They are about developing a process for changing the political landscape in a real and feasible way. I think that is clearly valuable, but it seems exhausting to me AND you still have a situation where powerful violent entities can take control if you haven't addressed the underlying issue. The underlying issue being that when selfish desire is a stronger motivator than compassion, peace is not kept.

One effective means of keeping powerful, violent entities from taking too much control of anything is decentralization. Anarchy and voluntaryism are ideas worth pondering but they seem almost as susceptible to powerful, violent entities as everything else seems to be.

The truth, in my honest opinion, is that none of these ideologies will work to defeat the problems that we have. The problem is what Dan pointed out when he said - "Jealously, greed, envy, malice, spitefulness, and vengeance will destroy any community." That pretty much sums it up right there. As long as we are driven by anything other than compassion for our fellow man, we are doomed to deal with the problems of violence.

The Solution Revisited

The real solution is actually an old one. The first part of the first step in Patanjalis Yoga Sutras is Ahimsa (non-violence - non-harming other living beings). That first step is a doozy - to study the 8 limbs of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras is to look at the instructions for becoming a sage. Dan is right again here - that we must be "enlightened individuals" as we build this community. It is heartening to read his closing statement that he "..will keep this in mind as we work to build and grow Steem"

It is important for us to keep compassion in mind as we are constructing any type of community. Anarchy and decentralization are concepts that are worth consideration, but I want to make the point here that these concepts fail without non-violence. I know the crypto community has its roots in these concepts and that is exactly what brought me to Steemit. I don't want to downplay the importance of these ideas, but I do want to make the point that they do not work without peace.

What really piqued my interest in Anarchy was hearing about it as a philosophy of peace, not of chaos and destruction. Anarchy without peace is not a solution to anything, but as @luminousvisions pointed out in a comment on Falkvinge's post, "in anarchy there are still rules, and systems, it's just that they're based on consent, not violence"

Conclusion

When we have achieved peace in every one of our hearts, we will achieve peace in our collective reality. When we achieve this piece in our hearts, the system of organization won't matter that much. In fact, an aristocracy or something of the sort could even work if we were really all benevolent. I believe we will all get to that point but we must begin by achieving this philosophy of non-violence within ourselves. As the great teacher, Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov says:

"You will never achieve great transformations in your psychic life until you have understood the magical secret of the law of affinity. Each feeling you experience has a particular nature and, by virtue of the law of affinity, it will stimulate forces in space of the same nature, which will make their way to you. If your feeling is negative, you will attract negative influences; if it is positive, you will attract blessings. You can thus draw everything you desire from the great reservoirs of the universe, but only if you emanate feelings and project thoughts that are of the same nature as those you wish to attract. These thoughts and feelings determine absolutely the quality of the elements and forces which will be awakened somewhere far off in space, and sooner or later they will arrive at your door. The law of affinity is the greatest key to spiritual achievement."

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

Non-violence is not the solution the non aggression principle is. If you are non-violent every violent group can just kill you and take the product of your labor. If you follow the NAP you can defend yourself against these people with violence and with non violent normal people you are peaceful.

·

Well, the best defense is a good offense so if some one is going to be aggressive against you, you need to be aggressive first! Just kidding! I don't think there is anything wrong with the non-aggression principle. Like I said, it is actually what I practice. I do however envision a future without even the need for self defense. This is an ideal. Not only is it possible, it is inevitable. I don't expect you to believe this, but it will happen. It is what we are evolving towards.

·

The only major violence I have encountered since I decided to practice ahimsa was the violence of the state. I mounted a defense and my defense served me well, but I believe there is a better way - a way in which I am never aggressed against in the first place.

And anarchy means, No rulers. If you are truly non violent you have to be an anarchist first.

·

If you are truly an anarchist you have to be non-violent. The desire not to be ruled is not more important than the desire to not rule anyone else. You have to have both for anarchy to exist.

·
·

Do you believe that defending yourself is a bad thing? Immoral? If someone attack you is it better to be killed than to fight back?

·
·
·

No, I don't. I defend myself

·
·
·
·

Well from my understanding of the the word nonviolent it means Nonviolence (from Sanskrit ahimṣā, non-violence, "lack of desire to harm or kill") is the personal practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition

As I see here is "under every condition" not allowing self defense. The rest is all good. On the other hand The non aggression principle is:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

·
·
·
·

I see the practice of Ahimsa as the very first step in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras and the very first step towards creating lasting peace. In practice I actually align more with non-agression currently but I can imagine a future where ahimsa is practiced by everyone.

Come on, all of these ideas are unfeasible because of human nature, as far as I understand anarchy is no government, which is actually what democracy and communism are in their original form, and you just look at how they turned out, democracy is impossible, the best you can get is a representative democracy were you vote for a few people who will decide for you, what is mostly happening in the developed countries. Communism despite all it's ideals ends up in totalitarian states. Take a democratically derived vote like the UK leaving the EU, what happened? You ended up with a polarized country were half the people loathe the other half. It doesn't work, only way we could have a better fairer earth would be if people actually entered a higher state of consciousness and good luck with that, people are of themselves selfish and envious, you can try to talk yourself into saying this isn't so but you are only fooling yourself. A case in point if you read this you will instantly start seeing all the ways that my reasoning is wrong and yours is right. So right there we have two people who can't agree on something, and this just gets bigger and bigger the more people are involved. And right there is where the violence starts.

·

Ahimsa is a prerequisite to creating a free environment. To have true freedom, violence must end by our free will. @happyhealthyhigh's comment shows us how our human nature can allow for that. If you read Dan's article, my article, and happyhealthyhigh's comment, the point being made is a simple one, so simple that we knew it as children. Non-violence is the way to achieve freedom. Non-violence is the way it is feasible. To look on human nature as inherently violent is to fall into the trap of thinking that creates a perceived need to be protected by the state. Getting caught up in a semantic argument is easy to do, but it does not make peace and understanding unfeasible. I appreciate a debate in which people give their reasoning to back up their point of view. Often it is not heard, but when it is, there can actually be a real exchange of ideas and that is valuable.

·
·

Well floweroflife I am completely ignorant as to Ahimsa, so I have to read up on it to be able to have any opinion on it. But remember we are just putting forward ideas, I am in no way trying to antagonize anyone, your ideas are just as valid as mine.

Yes, ahimsa, nonaggression, nonviolence are important. That is the default position. But there is also the requirement for self-defense, the use of MOral Lawful force to stand up , say NO, and stop the violence, which is the violation. Using force to stop violence, is not violence, it's force. Anarchy does embody this by default. Anarchy means "no rulers, i.e. no masters, no slaves, but still rules, Moral Law rules, which includes nonviolence ahimsa and self-defense to use force to stop violence.

I have some recent work on that with an inforgraphic: Be Right or Go Wrong - Ahimsa and Justice

Take care. Peace.

·

I agree. Stop the violence.

As someone who finds Ahimsa the most natural way of being and who resonates strongly with the NAP while also acknowledging that it is difficult to imagine myself using force against anyone or any being even if I was attacked, I enjoyed this piece. I have thought quite a bit about where I stand on using violence in response to violence, and it is so unnatural to me to think of causing harm and SO unpleasant, that while I agree that defending oneself against unprovoked aggression is a valuable course of action, I don’t know that I am capable of it, and I would venture to say that using violence goes against any human’s natural tendencies.

As such, I wholly disagree with the stance in one of the above comments that humans are inherently selfish and envious. These states of being are learned—or to be more accurate: taught. Selfishness, greed, aggression, and the like are rooted in fear and lack. When people grow up in a society based on fear surrounded by people who’ve grown up in a society based on fear, it tends to drown out the voice of the true self, which is based in love for self and others.

Watch the news for 2 minutes; the content and delivery of the stories feeds the fear narrative telling us we need to watch out, be wary of trusting people, that there’s an impending lack of all of the resources we “need” to survive as a species. Pushing the “reality” of danger and lack creates division, which allows the current system to continue working the way those in charge want it to work. Just because many people are driven by selfishness or envy does not mean that those are natural states of being; conditioned states of being, yes, but natural?

When determining the natural state of humans and whether we are “good” or “bad,” I think it’s useful to acknowledge that it just DOES NOT feel good to cause harm to or take advantage of another being. Compare the feeling you’d get from punching someone in the face and taking their money to the feeling you’d get from buying a homeless person lunch. What would feel better? What would feel more natural? The Share Experiment is one example that indicates human nature is to share rather than hoard.

As @floweroflife wrote, “When we have achieved peace in every one of our hearts, we will achieve peace in our collective reality.”

Every person can achieve peace in his or her heart—peace was there in the beginning and it remains even if we lose sight of it for a moment or for years. It’s always there; it’s just a matter of choosing to experience it. It’s being aware of how we are feeling and choosing love instead of fear—choosing what feels good and light and free over what doesn’t. We all have that capability.

Thanks for this post!

·

Wow @healthyhappyhigh! I was thinking about how to respond to the last few comments, but then you said everything I wanted say. Well said! Thank you!

Congratulations @floweroflife! You have received a personal award!

Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit Happy Birthday - 1 Year on Steemit
Click on the badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.

For more information about this award, click here

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!