Brief post.
There's been a recent depiction of Anarchic governance as this pink-clouded peace 'n love-convention.
While I always enjoy a bit of political marketing, I'm sufficiently ideologically engaged to strip away the paint, and reveal the harsh truth.
I will be actively engaging with Anarchists, and exposing the reality of the systems they endorse.
I don't really care about a post-reward penalty, I intend to barrage the space with logical, concise ideology-demolishing posts.
You may have debated @positive before (account no longer belongs to me).
My style will be much more targeted and less sophistic than before.
Mentions:
Crypto-land for developing in me a stark cynicism, though the ruthless self interest and manipulative marketing employed in the space.
Edit: flag removed.
Flagged for tag spam.
This is not an #introduceyourself (sorry)
Fair enough bro.
Keep up the good work :)
Removed
Thank you, flag removed.
Ok, how about starting by explaining how all human interactions should not be voluntary, and how it is moral to deprive another of consent in any such interaction, by force coercion, or fraud.
Except from a very small set of physical interactions, human interactions are by definition voluntary .
In any human interaction provided sufficient consensus is reached, other people will be deprived of consent if it is in the interests of the former group that has achieved consensus.
Interactions that are skewed from the course one would naturally be inclined to take by coercion or threat of violence do not count as voluntary. Example paying taxes to fund programs and actions one does not condone. No one does this voluntarily, they do it to avoid a direct threat to their freedom and ultimately their life. In answer to the second paragraph... Any consensus short of voluntary unanimity is not valid as it deprives any who do not agree of their consent if it is enforced. The only morally acceptable instance of depriving another of their consent is in response to their attempt to deprive another of theirs.
This is partly why I ignore moral arguments.
People voluntarily elect for delegative government, delegates are expected to appointed to make best decisions, of course the electorate could be ideologically oppose to the decisions they make. Doesn't make it any less voluntary.
Unanimous consensus is simply impractical, and cost to time and general inefficiency, suffices that sufficient people would agree to a floor on acceptable consensus.
This statement is far from ripping apart any anarchist arguement.
In fact it is actually highlighting some the reasons no government can be based in any kind of morality.
This destroys the idea of any government having any right to rule over people, as it inherently violates the consent of the governed.
How are you going to prevent from voluntarily electing for centralized government?
The same way you prevent free individuals from refusing to be governed..... You can't.
That said, the goal of most anarchism activists is to tear down the common acceptance of the idea that there can be any right to rule over another, as an individual or as a collective, until there are too many who have shaken off the myth of authority for any "voluntarily elected government" to ever enforce their will, on a large scale, on those who do not consent.
What?
Which point confuses you?
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
I have zero faith in you "tearing down" any argument, based on what I've seen here so far.
Good luck with your upvotes.
Good thing you don't need to rely on faith to confirm things!
These are serious questions and not meant to be threatening in any way. Would you stop someone from raping you and murdering your family? Would you stop someone from entering your house and emptying it of all your possessions by force? It sounds like if it is in your interests, you will do these things to others, is that correct? What is it that would make you want to stop people from doing terrible things to you? Would that not be the same or a very similar reason someone would try to stop you from doing those terrible things to them? Is that not the very foundation of morality and natural law: don't do shit to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you? There is only one true moral system, the one we were born with, the one that is inherent to our nature.
If they're optimal decision relative to my interests, then as far as I'm concerned, I would.
Though in reality actions involving violence are generally not optimal.
I'm only concerned with protecting my interests, I don't care about reciprocity in general (i.e. do unto others...etc etc)
Should goods and services be offered over the barrel of a gun? Yes or no.
So, Satire. Did you want to answer the question?
Just woke up.
So...yes or no?
Do I want someone to point a gun at me and steal my goods? no
So you are against taxation, yes?
I like your writing style.
Bold statements.
Line breaks.
I accidentally voted up for this post. Anyway to change that?
Is that a gif of Fred Savage?
Yes, it's Fred Savage from his new show The Grinder.
No idea who that is tbh. Copied it from a site
His name is Satire. I think he's one of us.
My satire is directed at forex charts and miscellaneous political figures. I really do believe most pro-Anarchists are victims of marketing by political-swindlers.
I didn't fully turn my stance until I read Ludwig von Mises 'Human Action'. Mises did absolute acrobatics in that book to not straight up say that government distorts markets and destroys wealth. His analysis of the omnipotent/omniscient God idea was delightfully cut short of drawing any conclusions as well.
If you by your use of the word 'anarchist' you mean the reds who walk around blissfully ignorant that their leveling of the economic playing field requires central authority and a ruling class to organise enforcers, then I agree. Anarchy in the sense of the natural state and even right now this voluntary exchange that you have started and I have chosen to enter into...
I love how this platform brings a sense of competition into discussions like I haven't experienced since I was striving to win karma points on The Hive.
Wow. Your responses have really impressed me, and urged me to reconsider certain things.
BTW to respond to the "bomb thrower" I think you're referring to propaganda of the deed.
Which is just a political strategy, rather than any display of moral fervor.
Yes, 'propaganda of the deed' was devised by the anarcho-socialists of the turn of the century. These guys actions backfired really bad because technology to gather intelligence on them was available and their actions drove its adoption. It really wasn't anything new, the first, biggest and most successful terrorist organisation of history, still, was the Ku Klux Klan whose terrorism triggered the Civil War.