4 ms·

Fair enough, I may have interpreted things a bit freely. Sorry about that. I don't know a thing about The Walking Dead, but I guess you mean the freedom while

by jahaja 13y ago

Fair enough, I may have interpreted things a bit freely. Sorry about that. I don't know a thing about The Walking Dead, but I guess you mean the freedom while being alive in post-apocalyptic society which is of course a fair point - even though a bit strange and could be interpreted to mean textbook anarchy. A significant part of anarchist idea is to increase individual freedom as much as possible so I don't really follow you that it wouldn't bring more of it. Practice can of course always differ from theory and ideal, but as you seem to discard it out of hand I'd like to know a bit more why you do that. This is a bit anecdotal but I recently read somewhere that the lack of rules on the school playground made bullying less common rather than the opposite. I agree that clear organizations can nurture freedom as well but I don't agree with you that "diffuse power structures" inherently becomes oppressive. I think people with doubious motives or personalities can cause trouble in both kinds of organizations.

pron 13y ago
> A significant part of anarchist idea is to increase individual freedom as much as possible Anarchists are no more pro-freedom than progressives. Anarchists simply argue that lack of hierarchy is the best way to achieve freedom, while progressives argue that strong, democratic, regulatory institutions is the best way to achieve individual freedom. Actually, the whole point of democratic institutions is to place boundaries on people with dubious motives or personalities, as those will always abound. Also, there is debate on the meaning of freedom, because most kind of freedom mean that some individuals are free to restrict others' freedom (for example, if you're free to contaminate a river, you're denying the freedom of those who rely on it for their water to live a healthy life). Progressivism tries to give this ability only to people that are democratically elected.
- jahaja 13y ago
  Yeah, I have no problem with that and I wouldn't want to dive into a discussion of what "true" freedom is as it is not objective to start with. You said it yourself: "X simply argue that Y is the best way to achieve freedom".

by jahaja 13y ago

pron 13y ago

> A significant part of anarchist idea is to increase individual freedom as much as possible Anarchists are no more pro-freedom than progressives. Anarchists simply argue that lack of hierarchy is the best way to achieve freedom, while progressives argue that strong, democratic, regulatory institutions is the best way to achieve individual freedom. Actually, the whole point of democratic institutions is to place boundaries on people with dubious motives or personalities, as those will always abound. Also, there is debate on the meaning of freedom, because most kind of freedom mean that some individuals are free to restrict others' freedom (for example, if you're free to contaminate a river, you're denying the freedom of those who rely on it for their water to live a healthy life). Progressivism tries to give this ability only to people that are democratically elected.

jahaja 13y ago
Yeah, I have no problem with that and I wouldn't want to dive into a discussion of what "true" freedom is as it is not objective to start with. You said it yourself: "X simply argue that Y is the best way to achieve freedom".