Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Dotoar, I may not know the details. I'm a hypocrite for sure. My ideas are ridiculous and impossible. But I do know I want way less people and way fewer laws. I also want to live in a world without money, militaries, compulsory education...
I might be a fascist, communist, libertarian, pacifist, or whatever- as long as it's different from what we're doing now. My idealogies aren't ironed out because to me there's no point in that. It's stupid to confine yourself to a belief system because it's all crap. I can't change anything or convince anyone of anything or even live the way I want to myself. But still, I call myself an anarchist because when I take any issue and boil it down to what I really believe, at my core it's anarchism. My mind is a convoluted mess though.
I appreciate that you even took the time to read the crap I've written so far. I'm not a troll but I am a bit of a crank. But, isn't it too easy to just say, hey, I believe in this and then start backing it up? Well, maybe that's all I've been up to on here. I also really believe in pacifism. Maybe if I started there my ideas would make more sense.
|
Being sort of a political outcast myself considering my surroundings of social democracy (if that term makes any sense outside Sweden) I certainly can relate to being ridiculed and regarded as a radical with utopian ideas (to which I usually retort: Well, better being utopian than dystopian, isn't it?). I have generally nothing against you being an anarchist, as I think that our underlying premises are quite similar. What makes me continuing this discussion however, is the absurd conclusions you reach in specific cases although I don't really think that they're derived from any general anarchic ideal.
The core issue in this discussion, as I see it, is the role of the government and if that role may be fulfilled in another way, and everything else is secondary. It's about taking a step back from the prevalent notions of left/right (democrats and republicans in the US, I believe. In Sweden it's more like left/not as much left/a loud group of nationalists) and instead consider the governmental power itself. Approaching this issue from an anarchistic point, i.e. the natural state, is quite helpful in casting light upon just how much influence the emerging government needs to have, and even more importantly, is morally justified to have.
Having said that, I'd like to know your stand on the individual rights (the right to not being subject to threat, compulsion and violence)? Furthermore, do you acknowledge the concept of property?