4 ms·
By denouncing absolutism, you are being absolutist yourself ;-) Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to
by patricius 9y ago
By denouncing absolutism, you are being absolutist yourself ;-)
Okay, so if the absense of State would prove to work for the majority of people (which seems to be your criterion), you would support a State-free society?
- beat 9y agoI'm pretty familiar with historic and modern anarchist thought. In theory, I would support (and prefer) a State-free society. In practice, I don't see it as viable, especially at this point in history. That said, a State-free society would necessarily be a property-free society. We need the State in order to have the records and the courts to resolve disputes over property ownership.
- patricius 9y agoI don’t think it is viable currently either. I just think it is the ideal we should strive towards. Paradoxically, I don’t believe an anarchist society could work without private property rights. And if you are familiar with anarchist thought, you are probably also aware of and have considered the arguments for privatizing courts and so on, so I won’t bore you with that.