RE: 🔥🔥Are you an Anarchist? - I'll tear down every one of your arguments 🔥🔥
You could start by being clear about your OWN position, by answering these questions:
1 - Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?
2 - Do those who wield political power (presidents, legislators, etc.) have the moral right to do things which other people do not have the moral right to do? If so, from whom and how did they acquire such a right?
3 - Is there any process (e.g., constitutions, elections, legislation) by which human beings can transform an immoral act into a moral act (without changing the act itself)?
4 - When law-makers and law-enforcers use coercion and force in the name of law and government, do they bear the same responsibility for their actions that anyone else would who did the same thing on his own?
5 - When there is a conflict between an individual's own moral conscience, and the commands of a political authority, is the individual morally obligated to do what he personally views as wrong in order to "obey the law"?
Beat me to it Larken.... That said, morality that does not take into account the natural individual right to free will and self ownership, is not morality, but a morally deficient opinion. The fact is you cannot destroy anarchist arguements, you can only deflect and talk circles around the actual points
We'll see.
If I were that individual I would let my actions be dictated by whether or not they were in my interests.
For the first three, you answered a question with a question. The fourth was meaningless politician evasion. The fifth was an excuse to not answer. I'm done.
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
First off, "Anarchic governance" is a contradiction in terms.
Second: "Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse."
What? There's just one system: systematic voluntary interactions and the recognition of the consistent application of rights in society.
Third, you did a terrible job answering Larken Rose's questions, and you admitted to moral relativism. If you do not subscribe to any sort of definite morality, you have no means of having an intelligent discussion regarding any sort or form of morality (way of living).
Your only strength, thus, is and will be clever word games and evasion. You will not be pleasant to talk with, and the only upvotes you will or can get will be those who just enjoy drama for the sake of drama.
I'll put some words in your mouth, which you'll hate and will entirely focus on, but your behavior is scum-ish, and I want people to see clearly what they're dealing with when they talk with you: by saying that you perscribe to "a world of self interests" your moral code is that of Self-Interest, which means that you live by that which is in your interest.
That means that other people, water, food, and so forth are in your interest, assuming that you want to live, which I think is a decent assumption. If you don't, then disregard this comment, as well as the entirety of the steemit website. You won't need it if you're dead.
The requirements for the satisfaction of your self-interest are the consistent application of rules in society because without that, your Self will be in poverty, as is currently the case, since a society based on inconsistently-applied rules where there are exceptions to the rules (rulers) is one where poverty is the constant and the norm, such as this one.
Therefore, you, while pandering to the notion that you do not subscribe to a moral code, subscribe to the moral code of self-interest, and this conflict and dissonance of thought is the core of your contention that anarchists advocate "systems" and types of "governance".
You are an extremely confused individual, which is why the likes of Larken Rose was like,
"Eh. Yuck."
As I expected, you're full of hot air. Fitting that you're on steemit.
And hey, if your name is what you're doing... somewhat decent job.
But you really need to take more of a position. You're boring as fuck.
I meant governance in the very general sense not as in a centralized government.
The nature of human interactions in the system.
I'll write a few posts, and be much clearer as to the exact Anarchist philosophies that I'll be attacking.
he was asking you to answer these questions within the moral system that you subscribe to. You probably want to retry this one. Sophistry isn't going to go anywhere.
I'm writing a post to explain my stance. Secondly, I'm not even convinced emphasis on morality is consistent with most anarchic schools of thought (see Marx Stirner).
'most anarchic schools of thought'. Like the ones that inspired the bomb throwers of the turn of the century? Kropotkin, etc. Stirner was not far away from Nietzche in his position also. Radical individualism. But does reality have a consequence-less sandbox for us to throw around our will?
There is a big difference between the 'morality' of the herd and the morality of you standing alone under the sky with your own judgement upon yourself, when you have nobody to fool anymore.
Moral means right even if the whole world disagrees. Right on principle, right without any need of any other measure. Of course real life is much fuzzier. Difficulties can push you to violate your own codes, and lures and hope can make you fabricate entirely nonsensical schemes of values. But despite this, I think that there is an objective measure for morality, and it is not something that others can entirely judge, and there is plenty of history to show that the opposite can occur, when people have become numb to the wrong they do every day and it becomes normalised.
From outside people can easily see it. We are tasked not to be perfect but to strive towards better responses to events in our lives. Dodging serious questions and pretending that 'normal' is also 'moral' leaves you with no standing amongst those who seek to walk their talk.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchism-exposed-part-1-clarifying-my-stance-and-defining-anarchism
My stance
Just replied to your post.
https://steemit.com/anarchism/@satire/anarchy-exposed-response-to-larkenrose-s-political-mythology-101-part-one