This is a very personal choice, blanket rules won't work, imo.
If you see somebody abusing his child and you help the child escape should the child be forcibly kept from returning?
If you watch Conan the Destroyer this movie revolves around a young girl raised her whole life to be a sacrifice to a god, is it right to interfere with her idea of being a princess?
You have to decide for you what you tolerate occurring around you.
Anarchism will have towns that you don't want to go to because they don't agree with your worldview.
The key is that no one is forced to do things they don't want to do nor be kept from doing what they do want to do.
If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo.
I think kids should be free to accept better offers down the street.
It would incentivize being good to your kids.
It's precisely the blanket rule of "no coercion" that I am challenging.
You avoided implying the use of force in the hypothetical by using the idea you could help the child be freed without violence. While this is obviously the simplest situation for the future of the child, the question if begged that say the child is freed, should there be no consequences for the abuser? You point out that the agency of the child should be respected. Then, to complicate matters further, what if the child wants to be abused?
I am not arguing for this, but this is the challenge. In this example the challenge from "sensible society" is that a child abuser should be punished.
And btw it's not like I'm expecting answers from you personally in defence of these ideas (or the post author to whom it was originally directed) but these are questions it is obvious to raise, and which should be considered, though perhaps not definitively or easily answered.
It can be hard to determine who fired first though, and who gets to decide what constitutes such an initiation. In todays world of considering certain form of speech as "violence" it's even more difficult. (btw I'm aware the Daily Wire is not a great source, but you get the point)
I'd like to say also for the record that I am simply having a debate here, this is not an attack, I may have been taken up wrong that I'm messing with you guys 😣
Good point, I accept that. I only think that if you are happy to trust your own judgement making that determination and accept the risk, you will find yourself in potentially deadly disagreement with folks.
Does the child not also have the natural rights to life, liberty, and property? That is where the question arises. I would trespass against a man who has shown himself deliberately trespassing against another.
Anarchism is taking responsibility for your own choices and actions. What would you do?
I would trespass against a man who has shown himself deliberately trespassing against another.
It's in judging when someone has "shown" themselves to be "deliberately trespassing against another" where the issue arrises. AFAIK this why we have the ideal that justice should be impartial, to attempt to remove the mistakes we can make in this judgement.
I'm not sure what I would do. I would certainly feel a heavy burden to act in some way. I would probably consult the people around me I respected and debate what to do. I imagine a verbal confrontation from the abusers peers would be best, but without violence if possible. But that might involve trespassing on their land / homestead, etc. or staking them out. What if they start shooting out? It could get complicated.
So I guess what I'm attempting to challenge is the idea that we shouldn't have to submit ourselves to the ideas of our community, even in some ultra thin sense, for example just to challenge serious abuse. @freebornsociety seems like a moral relativist to me, it seems apparent in "If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo." Establishing whether or not they want it, whether or not they have the capacity to make that decision (given they are children), and so on, is more difficult that just letting people do what they want.
I think people can probably only do everything they want, not if we have anarchism, but if we have no society.
I agree that @freebornsociety in his scenario is being a tad too dogmatic in his approach...
We should use a more rational approach, which is the one I tried to outline above?
Hope that one helps to clarify.. Ask any questions if you have any as I've pondered anarchism a lot and read almost all of Malatesta and Kropotkin :)
Thanks, but just to make my angle clear, I'm not looking for a quick way into the secrets of the great anarchist thinkers as @freebornsociety is suggesting, I've read widely, I am seeing how the ideas hold up in real person to person discussion. It's not that interesting to get a couple of books and have them do all the talking for you. (I'm not saying you're doing this)
This is a very personal choice, blanket rules won't work, imo.
If you see somebody abusing his child and you help the child escape should the child be forcibly kept from returning?
If you watch Conan the Destroyer this movie revolves around a young girl raised her whole life to be a sacrifice to a god, is it right to interfere with her idea of being a princess?
You have to decide for you what you tolerate occurring around you.
Anarchism will have towns that you don't want to go to because they don't agree with your worldview.
The key is that no one is forced to do things they don't want to do nor be kept from doing what they do want to do.
If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo.
I think kids should be free to accept better offers down the street.
It would incentivize being good to your kids.
It's precisely the blanket rule of "no coercion" that I am challenging.
You avoided implying the use of force in the hypothetical by using the idea you could help the child be freed without violence. While this is obviously the simplest situation for the future of the child, the question if begged that say the child is freed, should there be no consequences for the abuser? You point out that the agency of the child should be respected. Then, to complicate matters further, what if the child wants to be abused?
I am not arguing for this, but this is the challenge. In this example the challenge from "sensible society" is that a child abuser should be punished.
And btw it's not like I'm expecting answers from you personally in defence of these ideas (or the post author to whom it was originally directed) but these are questions it is obvious to raise, and which should be considered, though perhaps not definitively or easily answered.
The distinction is the initiation of coercive force.
It can be hard to determine who fired first though, and who gets to decide what constitutes such an initiation. In todays world of considering certain form of speech as "violence" it's even more difficult. (btw I'm aware the Daily Wire is not a great source, but you get the point)
I'd like to say also for the record that I am simply having a debate here, this is not an attack, I may have been taken up wrong that I'm messing with you guys 😣
The difficulty in such determination does not negate the distinction the determination provides.
Good point, I accept that. I only think that if you are happy to trust your own judgement making that determination and accept the risk, you will find yourself in potentially deadly disagreement with folks.
Does the child not also have the natural rights to life, liberty, and property? That is where the question arises. I would trespass against a man who has shown himself deliberately trespassing against another.
Anarchism is taking responsibility for your own choices and actions. What would you do?
It's in judging when someone has "shown" themselves to be "deliberately trespassing against another" where the issue arrises. AFAIK this why we have the ideal that justice should be impartial, to attempt to remove the mistakes we can make in this judgement.
I'm not sure what I would do. I would certainly feel a heavy burden to act in some way. I would probably consult the people around me I respected and debate what to do. I imagine a verbal confrontation from the abusers peers would be best, but without violence if possible. But that might involve trespassing on their land / homestead, etc. or staking them out. What if they start shooting out? It could get complicated.
So I guess what I'm attempting to challenge is the idea that we shouldn't have to submit ourselves to the ideas of our community, even in some ultra thin sense, for example just to challenge serious abuse. @freebornsociety seems like a moral relativist to me, it seems apparent in "If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo." Establishing whether or not they want it, whether or not they have the capacity to make that decision (given they are children), and so on, is more difficult that just letting people do what they want.
I think people can probably only do everything they want, not if we have anarchism, but if we have no society.
I agree that @freebornsociety in his scenario is being a tad too dogmatic in his approach...
We should use a more rational approach, which is the one I tried to outline above?
Hope that one helps to clarify.. Ask any questions if you have any as I've pondered anarchism a lot and read almost all of Malatesta and Kropotkin :)
Thanks, but just to make my angle clear, I'm not looking for a quick way into the secrets of the great anarchist thinkers as @freebornsociety is suggesting, I've read widely, I am seeing how the ideas hold up in real person to person discussion. It's not that interesting to get a couple of books and have them do all the talking for you. (I'm not saying you're doing this)
Reading your other long comment now.