6 ms·

The choice to go full anarchist/minarchist is also a political choice. Any sort of (non-)governance/agreement of/with other people is a political choice.

• baddox 13y ago
  It's a political choice in the sense that it's the choice to refrain from politics. It's analogous to atheism being the choice to refrain from believing in theism. Anarchism isn't politics, and atheism isn't religion.
  • coldtea 13y ago
    Politics is how people agree between them (or are forced by others) to go about their lives. You cannot "refrain from politics" anymore that you can "refrain from life" or "refrain from society". As long as you are subject to law, for example, you are participating in politics (as a passive subject at least). Or as long as you need to use any common infrastructure, from roads to water, you are participating in politics. Anarchism itself is very much politics, and has a long history of political involvement that takes 200 volumes to recount, from the International to the Spanish Civil War and on. The only alternative to politics is to go to some cabin in the woods and hunt for your food, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      • redblacktree 13y ago
        That, and you'll still be required to pay property tax.
    • baddox 13y ago
      > Politics is how people agree between them (or are forced by others) to go about their lives. I want to be clear about my definitions to avoid semantic arguments. Sure, in a casual context the word is used that way (e.g. "office politics"). I mean to use the more specific definition, which refers to the organization of government, so I don't refer to all social organization as "politics." For another usage similar to mine, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-politics.
      • parasubvert 13y ago
        The point others are trying to make here is that it's completely self-serving to call one's political thought as Non-Politics. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought and agorism is political in nature, making large (debatable) assumptions about how societal relations ought to be organized.
        • baddox 13y ago
          But you're still making a semantic argument, which is what I'm trying to avoid. I'm not arguing over what the "true meaning" of the word is. I have given my definition, and I would prefer that my statements be evaluated using those definitions.
          • foobarbazqux 13y ago
            You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. And everyone else is saying that non-politics is still politics. But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics. At any rate, with non-politics everyone still governs their own body, so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations.
            • baddox 13y ago
              > You're claiming that having different politics (left-wing, right-wing, etc.) isn't a viable solution, only non-politics is a solution. It depends what you mean by "left-wing" and "right-wing." There are certainly a lot of differing beliefs which can be held without approving of politics. > But in order to be consistent with your claim that all politics are bad whereas anarchy is good, you have to claim that anarchy is not politics. You're still phrasing this like a semantic argument. I am not trying to argue what the "true meanings" of words are, because that's useless (although it's clearly a very attractive style of argument to many people in this thread). I have told you what definitions I am using, and clearly, anarchism is not politics according to my definitions. I would prefer you address the actual ideas I have expressed, rather than argue over "true meanings" of words. Also, I am not saying that all discussion of political philosophy is bad, because that field inevitably concerns itself with beliefs which advocate refraining from political activity. > so it's not unreasonable to view absolute anarchy as 7 billion different totalitarian nations. It is unreasonable if you want to have intelligent discussions using concise terms. That's why, if the members of a discussion are unable or unwilling to agree upon a few basic definitions, the only arguments available are semantic arguments. Thus, discussions involving the concept of "nations" or "states" should be based on an agreement of terms, and the only conceivable useful definitions for those terms would exclude individual humans.
  • mayanksinghal 13y ago
    May be I am ignorant, but anarchism doesn't appear to be very different from tribal societies. No large concentrations of power, no permanent authority, minimal rules and localized politics. It is definitely a political choice about choosing a small but (all) powerful association than a large but weak association. and not analogous to atheism, unless you want to force that association.
    • baddox 13y ago
      Anarchism is a very broad term. While specific forms of anarchy may contain one or more of the attributes you listed, none of those attributes are inherent to the idea of anarchy.
  • king_jester 13y ago
    > Anarchism isn't politics, and atheism isn't religion. Anarchism is political even if anrachists generally do not favor organized government. Anarchism doesn't require that communities and people dissolve their relationships with each other.
  • foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > Anarchism isn't politics, and atheism isn't religion. Form is emptiness; Emptiness is form. Form is nothing but emptiness; Emptiness is nothing but form. -- Heart Sutra The opposite of something contains all the elements of the thing it is opposed to, much as a footprint in the sand can be cast with plaster. Neither dependence nor independence is interdependence. Your actions and beliefs cannot escape from the continua of political and religious actions and beliefs that describe them; you can only end up highly polarized at one end.
    • baddox 13y ago
      In this thread I am desperately trying to be very clear about my definitions so as to avoid semantic arguments, but it seems futile. Your comment is an interesting claim about the nature of meaning, but I'm trying to talk about very specific ideas as best I can.
      • foobarbazqux 13y ago
        I'm simply claiming that black and white are not so different from each other, despite appearances. You are just as bound by the strictures of philosophy X when you endorse !X as your philosophy. We might not disagree about this, it's difficult to tell. If I've made a distracting argument, my apologies.