3 ms·

> We don't mean anonymity. Acting in secret is not freedom - acting openly and not being persecuted or prosecuted is freedom. So, if I openly state that I do n

> We don't mean anonymity. Acting in secret is not freedom - acting openly and not being persecuted or prosecuted is freedom. So, if I openly state that I do not acquiesce to any government (all external force is immoral imo) - does that mean I am now free, and no longer subject to its laws, pay taxes, etc? So, I don't think your definition of freedom cuts it. Any answer that assumes 'government' as part of the answer, and justifies acting with force against others, has to be wrong (immoral). Far better to follow the golden rule: Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated I think that does it.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
I'm sorry but I maybe feeling "off" today, but we should all be beyond kindergarten political philosophy. Anarchy is what it sounds like - awful and not some middle class libertarian utopia. Yes we need government. And these days we need government to roll up its sleeves and be government. We know you cannot arrange the bread delivery for London through one department but you can force privatised water companies to invest before dividends over periods of decades.
- verisimi 3y ago
  You're not feeling off. You simply don't understand that basic morality means that you cannot force others to do what you think is right for them to do. You want to find a way to get others to do what you want. This is immoral - you do not want others to have or exercise their freewill. And you want to use other people to force your opinions via police, legal system, etc on others. Put simply you think anarchy is a political philosophy. Whereas anarchy is a moral position - it advocates for free association with others - ie no force. The fact is that it is not morally acceptable to force others to do what you would like them to do, if they are not harming you. You wouldn't force your neighbour/friends/family to do what you say, if they are not harming you. But you consent to government using immoral force to get others to do what you want (steal money, enforce certain behaviour, etc, etc). In fact you think we need something like a dictatorship to wield even more force even more overtly. I think you will get your desire, unfortunately, as most people agree with you.
  - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
    Nah. I want to rule the world of course. But I would far rather setup a system of democracy to rule the world with everyone else than let some other bugger be king instead of me. And I believe in actual government - government that builds roads to deliver food on, government that agrees ways to make researchers to discover medicines and hospitals and nurses to inject them, and governments that force companies to label their food with their ingredients (or their ISP adverts with their fees). I call this real government. not the arguing fools on TV. We can argue how much much of it is too much. We are. But I refuse utterly that "doing real government" is immoral, that any attempt to agree common standards is tyranny. I believe that the real moral failing is to chip away at real government so much that services collapse and harm is done to real people. We can look at failed states like Niger or Haiti in horror, but we can also look at the mismatched life expectancy across our own rich countries and ask why? I reject the idea that we can roll back government so much we can lose driving licenses and just be more careful out there, that we can ignore food safety standards and just look at the restaurant kitchen carefully. I reject libertarianism because it knows as much about the real world as central command economics. I want government run on empirical data with justice and equality at its heart. I am happy to accept the grey areas, will stand up for democracy will argue we can always do better. But buggered if it's because I secretly yearn to control your life.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      > I want government run on empirical data with justice and equality at its heart. You're asking for technocracy, and this is what is lined up already - you might wonder whether you are being engineered. All those cameras, smart phones, smart meters, legislation, facial recognition, etc - this is to allow micro-management at the most granular level. It's all quite far from freedom indeed, which is where this conversation started. The global governance structure is already fascistic (corporation and the state work together). I'm not a fan of the forced tyranny that's in store for us - once we've got it, I suspect you'll change your mind too.
      - lifeisstillgood 3y ago

lifeisstillgood 3y ago

I'm sorry but I maybe feeling "off" today, but we should all be beyond kindergarten political philosophy. Anarchy is what it sounds like - awful and not some middle class libertarian utopia. Yes we need government. And these days we need government to roll up its sleeves and be government. We know you cannot arrange the bread delivery for London through one department but you can force privatised water companies to invest before dividends over periods of decades.

verisimi 3y ago
You're not feeling off. You simply don't understand that basic morality means that you cannot force others to do what you think is right for them to do. You want to find a way to get others to do what you want. This is immoral - you do not want others to have or exercise their freewill. And you want to use other people to force your opinions via police, legal system, etc on others. Put simply you think anarchy is a political philosophy. Whereas anarchy is a moral position - it advocates for free association with others - ie no force. The fact is that it is not morally acceptable to force others to do what you would like them to do, if they are not harming you. You wouldn't force your neighbour/friends/family to do what you say, if they are not harming you. But you consent to government using immoral force to get others to do what you want (steal money, enforce certain behaviour, etc, etc). In fact you think we need something like a dictatorship to wield even more force even more overtly. I think you will get your desire, unfortunately, as most people agree with you.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  Nah. I want to rule the world of course. But I would far rather setup a system of democracy to rule the world with everyone else than let some other bugger be king instead of me. And I believe in actual government - government that builds roads to deliver food on, government that agrees ways to make researchers to discover medicines and hospitals and nurses to inject them, and governments that force companies to label their food with their ingredients (or their ISP adverts with their fees). I call this real government. not the arguing fools on TV. We can argue how much much of it is too much. We are. But I refuse utterly that "doing real government" is immoral, that any attempt to agree common standards is tyranny. I believe that the real moral failing is to chip away at real government so much that services collapse and harm is done to real people. We can look at failed states like Niger or Haiti in horror, but we can also look at the mismatched life expectancy across our own rich countries and ask why? I reject the idea that we can roll back government so much we can lose driving licenses and just be more careful out there, that we can ignore food safety standards and just look at the restaurant kitchen carefully. I reject libertarianism because it knows as much about the real world as central command economics. I want government run on empirical data with justice and equality at its heart. I am happy to accept the grey areas, will stand up for democracy will argue we can always do better. But buggered if it's because I secretly yearn to control your life.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > I want government run on empirical data with justice and equality at its heart. You're asking for technocracy, and this is what is lined up already - you might wonder whether you are being engineered. All those cameras, smart phones, smart meters, legislation, facial recognition, etc - this is to allow micro-management at the most granular level. It's all quite far from freedom indeed, which is where this conversation started. The global governance structure is already fascistic (corporation and the state work together). I'm not a fan of the forced tyranny that's in store for us - once we've got it, I suspect you'll change your mind too.
    - lifeisstillgood 3y ago