3 ms·
I have to say it's really weird to see someone advocating for every-growing larger centralized governments and advocating for statelessness as a means to freedo
by pc86 2y ago
I have to say it's really weird to see someone advocating for every-growing larger centralized governments and advocating for statelessness as a means to freedom.
Do you see how these ideas are diametrically opposed? How does farther-removed, more powerful federal governments lead to freedom compared to close, small governments staffed by people who live right next to you?
- MeImCounting 2y agoI think the big problem with historical anarchist discourse is that it ignores bad actors, edge cases and economics and where it does deal with those things its solutions usually look a lot more like totalitarianism or mob rule than some anarchist ideal. The reason I think classically liberal economic and political values push us towards greater freedom is because I believe the following two things to be evident: 1. Freedom is related to wealth. 2. In the US we are for the most part more free than any other society in history. Obviously there are exceptions to these but I think they are generally true. The reason I dont see statelessness and large democratic governments to be opposite ideals is because I see statelessness as an idealized result of freedom and democracy as the means to get ever closer to that ideal. This isnt really a unique perspective save for the fact that I think the idealized form of a free society doesnt have people forcing other people to do things.