Define ‘discerned’…
I find myself in agreement with this assessment of “most people”.
I admit that I do not literally know most of the 7 trillion people on the planet, and neither is anybody else likely to - in whatever combination. So in comparing “most people”, we’re most likely to find at least slight variations. This means it’s somewhat interesting when we don’t.
I too find that most people I have come across are not compassionate, because they need to blame, meaning there is a lot of cruelty. Not individually towards me, mind. I am referring to a general outlook and attitude, which may or may not manifest itself politically. I analyse this as a reaction to either a lack of intelligence and creativity or - much more disturbingly - a lack of willingness to be any different. The latter appear quite content in their discontentment, to take all at face value. Without an easy scapegoat, they blame individuals rather than the way in which they are organised, encouraged and discouraged. They are largely disinterested in politics and the study of society and economy even if they do have the intelligence and creativity to do so, and even if they do loosely affiliate themselves with a party - though seemingly only to have some answer to questions about it, to avoid being labelled ignorant. They might not be averse to a little amateur psychology though, which is naturally warped and negative due to the knowledge from which they cut themselves off. The unintelligent and uncreative end up with similar symptoms, but at least they are not squandering their abilities.
I think if there’s one thing that modern politics understands, it’s these people. They are the majority and they are manipulable because they are dim.
Intellectual theories that you are likely to find on a philosophy board or amongst any intellectual group of people, are beyond them - and thus crucially inapplicable.
I think politics ought to start with admitting what we’ve got - whether or not it ends up transforming it.
Anarchism has some success in appealing to the majority because its central message is a lack of government, and government is one of the most obvious scapegoats - it’s visible, it is accountable (in that politicians are required to put themselves in the way of identified issues as those who are about to resolve them) and its role affects people’s day to day financial situations. Single issue parties with an aversion to foreigners, calling it “national pride”, “Nationalism” or “independence” have an equally visible issue to scapegoat, which likewise affects people’s day to day financial situations. This gives the majority a target to impotently complain about - but people are a lot safer than inanimate property. Anarchism’s central message being rooted in destruction applies to both people and things, so it attracts a more physical crowd who now get to feel justified in attacking property. As such they become more known for vandalism and violence than anything else, especially amongst rebellious youths - meaning it is usually written off as a teenage phase that only brutes will carry on into adulthood.
One main thing that benefits the main political parties is PR. They know that most people only care about the personality of the person in charge, and the addressing of isolated complaints minus the bigger picture. It thrives on its pettiness and through this achieves the goal of mostly carrying on things as they are, with only minor tweaks. These minor tweaks often making things worse only feeds their Conservativism.
The only problem is that people want more change than this (despite being afraid of too much change at once). Only, alternatives have a bad reputation (though often for good reason - and I would say there’s a good reason Anarchism has one). Alternatives need to think about their market - not just their essential principles, which on their own create a reputation too easily marred. Their essential principles should be directed away from something easily slandered. Anarchism is too extreme for this, as well as being foolish enough to concentrate on superficial things even at its depths.
On the frontiers, perhaps, but serfs, for example, in many times and Places could not ignore the state. But in any case, I am not quite sure how this explains the lack of anarchists nowadays. (perhaps there are more than say in the 70s, but we are still talking about a small, small minority.) it seems like they are anarchists in potentia.
That’s fair, if I am taking it correctly as they are defacto anarchists even if they do not define themselves this way. I would raise the issue of why so many of them would be skeptical about the dissolving of the state working.
One can be aware of the problem and simply do things so as to makes ones Life easier. There is only so much most people are willing to treat Everything as a Place to take a political stand. However I don’t find most people aware that there are problems with having a state or the way Corporations can influence their lives and the government. They have problems with this law and that policy, but then to want other ones.
And frankly much of the population that identifies as libertarian, also a minority, don’t seem to fit your criteria.
I was talking about that, but also direct on the ground compassion in interactions. With acquaintances, people they see on the street, people they hear complaining. If something tears someone out of their Daily Life - a guy on a bike get hits by a cab - people are generally great. This is a valid victim - according to most people’s standards. But where you seems to be having trouble with systemic issues and they personally don’t agree with the implicit political stance in your issue, I don’t see much compassion. There still seems to me to be a generalized you are a bit of leper if you are not doing well. I can connect this with the way people take psychotopics. If you are feeling anxious, you have a problem. Modern Life is not the issue. Of course modern Life is stressful, people may grant, but if you are one of the ones who ‘really’ is bothered (which is an extremely large % of the population given medication rates) you have a problem and you should take the pills. I see the individual getting pathologized (not just around medication but it is a kind of marker of it) rather than assessment of systemic problems.
I still see a general taboo, also, around expressing ‘negative emotions’ in fact most of all fear and sadness about ‘the way things are’. This is generally not received well.
I agree. And I really see a powerful trend towards this. Why makes things good for us when we can make us good for…already Cold people with Power who want more.
Perhaps you are correct, but then I feel kinda slighted since I don’t have those reactions. All these people are being granted by you the status as compassionate, even though they may not demonstrate this quality because of the state. What is their problem? Think of people you know who actually manifest the qualities in your list. Are they really the same as everyone else? Or is there something lacking in the people who merely have those qualities as potential?
And how do you know what the people are really like?
I agree. I meant mainly that if you have the kinds of shifting ongoing renogotiation plus a lack of state enforcement, people have to be pretty darn like that list and not merely in potentia. Because otherwise the sociopaths will take over and form states. And fast.
I just don’t experience people as having much interest in creativity, for example, except in very restricted areas - portions of their work, getting out of chores, convincing their partners to do something, etc.
That Cuts both ways. I would be very nervous about going out of my apartment and actually figuring out a way to determine if even a few people fit your list.
First I see a great deal of the opposite. But more importantly, it’s not that I see people as bad, per se. It’s more like they are rigid, habit driven, precisely not creative, and resistant to moving beyond norms. Whether these come from the state or somewhere else is not important to me for this particular issue. This can lead to them doing good and bad thigns, but generally just going with whatever norms and customs their are. That inside there are these creative compassionate intelligent people waiting to leap out if only the state would release their bindings seems mythological to me. I am not focused on them as moral creatures so much, but as people who do not fit those adjectives you listed.
How do you see it being accomplished? Presumably there would be some intermediate stages between the current statist system and an anarchist World. Waht would these intermediate stages look like and how are they to be brought about?
FYI i haven’t read the whole thread yet,just posting as i read along
How should one measure value? How should I measure value? (Certainly not dollars or God or state)
I agree somewhat
I cannot ignore the time someone invests into preparing these ‘basic derivatives’. Also forgive me for being a bit primitive with my examples
Air - yeah that should be free in my opinion
food? water? cloathing? etc… i think these things are a bit more negotiable
Someone must hunt, grow, collect, harvest the food
Someone must build the bucket to collect the water
Someone must knit the clothing
Someone must build the house
The necessity of the object gives it value to me, but ‘should be free’ is not a premise i agree with
When i build my house and grow my food and knit my clothes, and then do it for others, I’d like to choose who to give the fruits of my labor to. Let’s say my children have a clothes and shelter and water but not enough food… i’ll be damned if I am compelled to give you some of my food or clothing for ‘equality’/freeness/community sake before i feed my children as much as they require
I would like to posit that my right to obtain these basic needs should not be impinged by any person or government, and I, In turn, will not attempt to impinge your ability to do these things either
I will help you if and when I can, but it is not for someone else to determine what that help will be. No person should impose that on me. I fundamentally reject (from a personal perspective) the idea that someone else can compel me to use my time in a specific manner that i disagree with, and be moral at the same time
However when it comes to these next levels… things get a bit trickier
I agree with this mostly
I think the free-market is used incorrectly most of the time, and is too often synonymous with “the protection of the ability of a corporation to use its dollars to influence law” by the people with power.
To the peons like me, it means the ability to sell you whatever I have for whatever I want without anyone interfering
I don’t really see ‘the market’ as an entity that can ‘have power’ in its purest form (but practically it does -its hard to live without dollars)
I think the concept of ‘free-market’ is perhaps better understood as an approach to the same end from a different perspective… or lets say… the fiscally conservative ‘approach’ towards anarchism. The socially liberal ‘approach’ tends to be different in my mind.
I’m not. I’m a hateful, domineering monster that would exploit you to my own selfish ends if given half a chance. And even if I’m exaggerating, there’s just enough people who really are that way. I’ve always thought talk about human nature kind of missed the point. Hobbes tried to say “here’s what people are like”, but his premise was far too strong. He really only needed to say “Here’s what a few people are like” to justify the state.
Thank you
It’s not as if there is any long standing tradition of societies that function well in the absence of a state. History seems pretty clear when it comes to anarchy.
Anarchism only means the sovereignty of the individual outside the controlling sphere of others. If you have a problem with the label anarchy or anarchism calling it individual sovereignty is describing the same thing.
Individual sovereignty has a nice ring to it.
All government is merely a monopolistic mafia when you reduce it to its most basic component. Law enforcers are its henchmen and violent strong arms in preserving it especially in preserving the exploitation that gives it power.
The Hitlerian messiah has spoken!
Government is the new skydaddy to answer your prayers in protecting you from other people? What a interesting interpretation.
To Uccisore:
What Hobbes defined as human nature being savage in historical times before the state existed is interesting considering human beings are equally savage with the state. A existence of anarchy wouldn’t be any more a savage one as our current savage existence under the state. Poor argument on your part.
Speaking of the savagery and inherent malice of the state we should really talk about all those stockpiles of nuclear weapons we use to blackmail each other into submission around the world or how as a part of contingency under the state we plan to use on one another for the preservation of the state’s existence.
The innocence of the government or the state in contrast to anarchy?
Give me a fucking break…
Define functions well. You’re of course not talking about everybody equally.
That statement strikes me full of intellectual dishonesty.
Individual sovereignty does have a nice ring to it. But I find it hard to see how we would be able to organise the things we need, eg healthcare, education, fuel for the masses if we didn’t have an organising body such as the Government. I think people place too much emphasis on the Government’s power and forget their own. They fail to take responsibility.
I think individual sovereignty is crucial but not at the expense or in conflict with the ‘collective sovereignty’. They coexist like the body and a cell within it. They are both equally important but in different ways or on different levels.
Admittedly Government as it stands has become over powering and a nanny state but that doesn’t mean it isn’t needed in a more some form. It is as unhealthy as the individuals within it and they will both have to change in order to become healthier. It’s the chicken and the egg.
Tyrannus, do you dislike the actions of the state or the existence of the state itself? What is your ideal alternative and how do you propose to make it ‘work’? I’m ignorant about these things, I assume the standards of living would go back to the 16th century overnight? Who would organise innoculations, dignified care of the mentally disabled, or the violent? All the things we take for granted? Wouldn’t it be better to try to improve the system from within than destroy it because it is flawed. What Governments do at a global level is only indicative of what we do to eachother as people. I do like to idea of individual sovereignty but I can’t see how we can just get rid of the state. Wouldn’t that be like getting rid of a lot of good things, as well as the bad?
Ok Tyrannus, how about YOU define “functions well” whichever way pleases you, and then find me a historical example of a society that does it in the absence of a state . . .
Unfortunately Hobbes didn’t realize that the state would necessarily end up being run by people like that, sociopaths.
I’m afraid you entirely miss the point of anti-statism.
Again, by virtue of the state being law-giver, the state is attractive to those who wish to be as far as possible above the law and use the law to dominate.
Now that the means of control the state has at its disposal have become so powerful, we need to abolish the state (as it is right now, as controlling every aspect of life) precisely in order to prevent people like “you” (yeah right, I saw your movie) from using it as an instrument.
Discerned ≡ distinguished and perceived as separate.