3 ms·

the question remains whether an anarchist society could be safe from an authoritarian neighbor. Actually, the answer is no. The contradiction in the ideology

the question remains whether an anarchist society could be safe from an authoritarian neighbor. Actually, the answer is no. The contradiction in the ideology is found, and therefore the ideology is philosophically false.

hayst4ck 4y ago
Further critique: Every paragraph I read makes me think that this is the type of philosophy for dreamers who don't understand the difference `∀x` and `∃x`. (something that is true for all cases vs something that is true for at least one case) It wasn't just a pithy satirical quote from Starship Troopers: Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. "...violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived" is a powerful statement and any political philosophy must first contend with it's theory of acceptable/required uses of force before anything else can follow. Immediately you run into the idea that to seriously contend with an adversary who would wish to dominate you or take your resources, you must have the means to develop technology and you must have a hierarchy to coordinate military actions. This new hierarchy is now a form of power and a threat to the very idea of not having an entity that can dominate someone else. It invokes the idea of a tax and funding and use of force to take that funding from others who theoretically share the same values, for to not fund your military is to become dominated. We are quickly reaching a point where nation states ability to target and execute violence exceed the possibility of guerilla resistance. This article trying to convince me that anarchy can work needs to start with violence at its foundation, not as a barrier or an after thought, but an axiom. Additionally As a programmer I am somewhat off put by the central idea. > each person should be the center of society, and all should be free to build the networks and associations they need to meet their needs in common with others. I feel like this statement says humanity should be an N^2 structure rather than a log(N) structure, which immediately makes me wonder how all the fish don't get fished out of the ocean and how you prevent your neighbor from polluting the world to death. When I attempted to satisfy myself with skimming, I feel like most arguments can be summed up as "environmental destruction is not a problem under anarchy, because under anarchy environmental destruction is not a problem" followed by an `∃x` explanation rather than an `∀x` justification. Which reminds me of when I fell pray to the Ron Paul hype because I believed humanity was good and accepted the "free market will solve the problem" and "people will act in their self interest" arguments, when the reality is that these ideologies purpose is primarily to tear down existing institutions and power structures so that currently powerful entities can concentrate their power less impeded. While there may be a temporary period of libertarian-ness or anarchy, it is quickly supplanted with authortarianism. The ideologies cannot sustain themselves, much like communism requires concentration of power as a step before ownership is distributed, which then perpetuates the concentration rather than enacting the distribution resulting in authoritarianism. If you want to escape/confront domination and exploitation the single most important description is how you distribute the mechanisms of violence/power and how bad faith actors are dealt with even if they are of equal power or have a level that ensures mutual destruction.

hayst4ck 4y ago

Further critique: Every paragraph I read makes me think that this is the type of philosophy for dreamers who don't understand the difference `∀x` and `∃x`. (something that is true for all cases vs something that is true for at least one case) It wasn't just a pithy satirical quote from Starship Troopers: Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived. "...violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived" is a powerful statement and any political philosophy must first contend with it's theory of acceptable/required uses of force before anything else can follow. Immediately you run into the idea that to seriously contend with an adversary who would wish to dominate you or take your resources, you must have the means to develop technology and you must have a hierarchy to coordinate military actions. This new hierarchy is now a form of power and a threat to the very idea of not having an entity that can dominate someone else. It invokes the idea of a tax and funding and use of force to take that funding from others who theoretically share the same values, for to not fund your military is to become dominated. We are quickly reaching a point where nation states ability to target and execute violence exceed the possibility of guerilla resistance. This article trying to convince me that anarchy can work needs to start with violence at its foundation, not as a barrier or an after thought, but an axiom. Additionally As a programmer I am somewhat off put by the central idea. > each person should be the center of society, and all should be free to build the networks and associations they need to meet their needs in common with others. I feel like this statement says humanity should be an N^2 structure rather than a log(N) structure, which immediately makes me wonder how all the fish don't get fished out of the ocean and how you prevent your neighbor from polluting the world to death. When I attempted to satisfy myself with skimming, I feel like most arguments can be summed up as "environmental destruction is not a problem under anarchy, because under anarchy environmental destruction is not a problem" followed by an `∃x` explanation rather than an `∀x` justification. Which reminds me of when I fell pray to the Ron Paul hype because I believed humanity was good and accepted the "free market will solve the problem" and "people will act in their self interest" arguments, when the reality is that these ideologies purpose is primarily to tear down existing institutions and power structures so that currently powerful entities can concentrate their power less impeded. While there may be a temporary period of libertarian-ness or anarchy, it is quickly supplanted with authortarianism. The ideologies cannot sustain themselves, much like communism requires concentration of power as a step before ownership is distributed, which then perpetuates the concentration rather than enacting the distribution resulting in authoritarianism. If you want to escape/confront domination and exploitation the single most important description is how you distribute the mechanisms of violence/power and how bad faith actors are dealt with even if they are of equal power or have a level that ensures mutual destruction.