Hasidic Jews and the Bane of Humanity
Is it immoral and evil for Hasidic Jews to populate a region, take over control of town and State governments, get on school board of education, and slowly reform the public school system?
No because there is no moral way to utilize the State at any level. The problem is not that bad people take control of the guns of "government". The problem is that the State exists at all. The problem is that people believe that the State AKA the initiation of force can solve any complex societal problem.
It is not that some are unfit to rule, all are unfit to rule. We do not condemn the lioness for hunting and killing gazelle. It is in their nature. We must not condemn those who seek to use State power to advance their own ends because it is in their nature. The problem is not who sits on the throne. The problem is that the throne exists at all.
Hasidic Jews and the Bane of Humanity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book a one to one private Skype session to discuss how you can learn and understand Peaceful Anarchism and Voluntaryism. $150 USD per hour to explore and incorporate true freedom into your life now!
Click here to purchase your very own Peaceful Anarchism T-shirts from Amazon: Peaceful Anarchism T-shirts on Amazon
Click on the link if you would like to download my free e-book “Peaceful Anarchism Volume 1” in PDF.
My name is Danilo Cuellar. Follow me at Peaceful Anarchism. I also run the Peaceful Anarchism Facebook page and produce many YouTube videos. You can support and donate to my work through Patreon. To support me through PayPal please visit my Peaceful Anarchism website and click on the donate button at the top right of the page. I’m a practitioner of Eastern Healing arts with degrees in Acupuncture and Chinese medicinal herbs, I have always questioned the status quo, a path which led me to peaceful anarchism. Through my journey, I have worn many hats, that of a classical pianist, avid chess player, philosopher, comedian, and now father of two little anarchists. My wife brands me as a Cultural Critic, but I am simply following my thirst for knowledge and passion for writing.
Why do you think no throne is a viable and more importantly a better option anyway?
If government can't solve problems, how would non-government do that? Are the problems going to go away by themselves?
(I'm asking sincerely as I really don't understand how anarchism is any form of alternative to the imperfect systems of government)
http://peacefulanarchism.com/the-philosophy-of-liberty-what-is-voluntaryism/
Thank you for commenting Rocking Dave. You pose some very complex questions that require some very complex answers. I propose that you start with basics first. Acquaint yourself with terms such as Voluntaryism, Free Markets, Capitalism, Non Aggression, Self Ownership, and Property Rights. Here is an overview I wrote and recorded of the basic philosophy. Let me know what you think. Cheers! :-)
http://peacefulanarchism.com/the-philosophy-of-liberty/
I have been getting aquanted with those terms and my personal assessment so far is that what you are talking about here cannot really be an alternative the organized society. I find the idea as utopian as communism and equally full of problems it wouldn't have the means to address if it was the way society was organized.
While the ideas you have expressed have some moral consistency that I appreciate, they are by no means practical and I view the idea that those principles on their own could lead to a better society than we currently have as wishful thinking that is not based on evidence or logic, but a desire to live in an ideal world. Well, we know very well ideal worlds don't exists.
Voluntaryism is something that very easily devolves into a system with a lot more violence than what we have right now as soon as you introduce a few powerful actors who don't care about your ideals and principles, but only want to expand their power and to bend everybody else to their will through violence or under the threat of violence. It lacks any mechanisms to actually ensure that society will remain free for most individuals. Resisting as much as humanly possible would not always be enough and is a highly inefficient usage of people's time and resources.
The free market is a powerful system to ensure economic progress and it is the best way we've found so far to achieve prosperity. Still, to me it's unreasonable and to an extent even naive to assume that the free market is a panacea that can fix every single problem. For instance, the free market on it's own does not include mechanisms that can ensure justice or safety. If your self ownership or property rights are harmed, the free market does not have a mechanism to protect you. That pretty much sums up the problem with the no throne idea - it has the potential to turn into a tyranny of the strongest and the most ruthless pretty easily.
Additionally, if you don't have a government that includes a proper rule of law, the free market is bound to be quite unstable. One of the things that allows proper trade and enterprise are contracts. If there is no authority to enforce contracts, contracts become unreliable which is bound to make the market less efficient and prosperous as partnerships would include much higher risk. Other things that benefit the free market greatly are things like intellectual property protection and infrastructure, neither of which could really be ensured under zero government. Btw, when I say infrastructure I don't just mean roads, a piece of infrastructure we take for granted is the internet - and while a lot of the connectedness has been build by private investors and can be attributed to the free market, the whole thing started as a government project funded by taxes and what made it the free forum that it is today was regulation. If left to the free market alone, net neutrality would quickly be destroyed and the internet would loose a lot of its appeal, value and utility. If there was no regulation in the beginning and different companies started implementing different market solutions, you would get a bunch of different networks with a lot of compatibility issues. So it's not hard to see how regulation is actually keeping the internet a relatively free place where we can have this discussion instead of allowing it to be segregated into a number of smaller competing networks.
To me, as imperfect as the current system might be (and it certainly is), it is a much better option that the no system alternative you seem to be proposing. More importantly, I have yet to find an anarchist or a supporter of voluntaryism (who seem to be abundant here) who can address those issues in a way that I find convincing. For now I remain unconvinced that any of those ideas are practical or even possible to implement.