You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: From the Monday Steem Desk, September 18th, 2017: The Inevitability of Anarchy / Upcoming Show Announcement / JP Morgan's Crypto Creep
They would be mesmerized by the idea of collective decision making and democracy, and would then turn around and vote to end anarchism, which they would not see as freedom but instead would see as callous disregard for the suffering of others.
Entirely possible.
and only when they have learned to value independence and learned the necessity of self reliance, be allowed to join the community. You would have to enshrine the anarchistic equivalent of the Amish Rumspringa.
"Allowing" individuals in and out of a community can only legitimately be done based on private property, so the idea of a society barring people from entering by any other authority would not be a voluntarist conception.
Hmmm.
There are two responses to that. One response is to value the idea of voluntarism higher than any other consideration, and thus to say that, if it violates voluntarism, then it has to go.
But that way is to value ideology over reality or practicality. Which makes us no different and certainly no better than the collectivists.
The other way is to recognize that we need to consider not just the primary or initial effects of changes to the system, but also to anticipate the secondary effects as well, because those secondary effects will have consequences that are just as real and permanent as the primary effects were. We can't just stick our head in the sands about the outcome of choices because it offends the ideological world we have created in our heads.
So if we see society as an adaptive, self organizing system, and we can predict what will happen when we make changes to that system based on the feedback process that all self organizing systems use to achieve equilibrium, and we can anticipate the consequences of the ideology, which is that the ideology will eventually bring about its own demise, then which one ought to go? The ideology or the practicality?
I'm curious why you feel private property is at odds with voluntarism?
Or perhaps I should say, private property owned by more than one individual?