Replies
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
If your answer as an anarchist is, "he's just trying to say that without a state, a state would arise, so that's a bad argument!" and to just dismiss me, you're being foolish. You're looking at the wrong aspect.
"What would the Karens do?"
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
A society of people who don't respect personal freedoms wouldn't respect personal freedoms in anarchy either.
If you can't address that fact with a system (I contend that you can't, but why don't you try anyways,) then it's not the systems that matter.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Do I agree that the actions of the state are immoral? Yes.
Is that the right battle to fight? No. I think not.
I think it's about the values of the people, and their propensity to purposefully act upon them.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
I can imagine no better way to create wide-scale, positive changes in the values of the people than to bring about global sound money.
Look at everything from retirement "savings" and "investments" (money in stocks number go up!!) to consumerism...
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Look at home ownership, wages, hidden inflation through downgrading the quality and quantity of goods sold at a given price, the punishment of savings especially in a manufactured economic crisis...
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Make the money sound, and all of that changes for the better, with ripple effects through everything else.
The state's capacity to wage war, to "protect us from ourselves," to surveil, to militarize the police, to "fix" the economy... It all diminishes.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
I want that for the world as soon as possible, and actively promoting dark markets, ICOs, and other things that actively attract the attention and power of the state against you is going to do little more than stifle all of that progress.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
We need to find balance, not extremes.
We need to recognize that regardless of the evils of the state, there are other evils, too, and we must oppose all evil, not merely that which we're most disturbed by.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.
Give not into evils, but proceed ever more boldly against them.
1J6h7Bex83EVCGvamT5LMVm9MECX4bSquW (7355) ·
I’ve been trying to explain this concept to folks for years, based on observations + info + intuition, and only found recently that this should have been common knowledge since 1755: The Cantillon Effect.
1J6h7Bex83EVCGvamT5LMVm9MECX4bSquW (7355) ·
https://twetch.app/t/e568d24554cb524984fbb65afd2bd7579ce065baeb0c05620013f8414fabeaf7
1B5BULyD2qnUEFiYS18eNByUwWsdJqkJYh (1828) ·
Anarchist is better as a state of mind or personal philosophy. It makes no sense to formalize it. Karens would be dead btw.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
The Karens would be largely the same, even though without big daddy everyone would have to grow up a bit.
The difference would be that they wouldn't be the useful idiots of an immoral, violent, oppressive entity dividing and ruling the people...
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Yes. I blame the current mainstream economics discipline. They did a lot to push the world backwards. It's a real shame.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
"Karens would be dead"
You don't appear to understand the Karen mentality or why I specifically chose it. You're just dismissing them without real thought.
1B5BULyD2qnUEFiYS18eNByUwWsdJqkJYh (1828) ·
When you say "what would the Karen's do" do you mean in an anarchist society or something else like communist? You are correct I am making some assumptions about what you are getting at but I think it is hard to tell with info presented.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
I was very clear when I said anarchist.
"Karens would be dead" is a complete lack of consideration on your part.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
Statist society is based on the idea that 'authorities' can violate individual rights.
An anarchist society would be based on the idea that NOBODY has the privilege to violate individual rights
Seems obvious to ne that the former is worse for ind. Rights
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
So you change the systems and the "privileges" change, but do the behaviors change?
I think you're missing my point.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
If you agree that the state is immoral, and you still think it's better to keep it going, does that mean you think the end justifies the means?
Because there are some serious problems with that idea...
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
When you construct your question around a false premise, you're always going to have "some serious problems"...
"X is immoral, and you want it to keep going? You're terrible!"
Except, what if Y is also immoral, and that will keep going, without X?
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Look at what I'm actually saying.
I'm talking about addressing the cause of both X and Y's immorality.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
Agreed. But how does that make statism ok?
Do you mind sharing what exactly it was that turned you away from anarchism?
Do you now think a society is better off if individual rights are systematically violated?
What changed your mind?
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
You're asking leading questions.
Please reread what I wrote, and try to understand what I'm actually saying.
19nTUyw97xhqL7eVJzmAJT2RbTvbW84gwv (561) ·
that's my conclusion too.
I believe Ayn Rand understood that, and that's why she never did politics but decided to write books to help people improve their values. Especially fiction, because it speaks deeper into the mind.
Values drive the world.
1HsARx3TiY2iYHWoyu4XF88fZq9rih32gH (116) ·
She did campaign for Goldwater, though generally I think she despised politics as a method for social change.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
Maybe we are missing each others point...
I'm ready to patiently listen and discuss.
The point I made that I think you are mssing is that in an anarchist society the privilege to violate other people's rights would not exist.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
I'm trying to understand.
That's why I ask you questions...
How and if you answer them is up to you, obviously.
I can't see how a society BASED on the violation of rights is not worse off in terms of rights than one that isn't.
Do we agree on that?
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
I think we are closing in on the point here.
What is immoral about an anarchist society?
That there would still be violence and coercion?
Of course there would be, humans would stll be humans. But nobody could claim the PRIVILEGE to violate rights.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
I get that. And I think it's great.
That doesn't change the fact that a statist society is inherently immoral while an anarchist (voluntary) society isn't.
Does it?
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
I'm not sure why you think I'm missing your point. More than half of my previous twetch in this thread was dedicated to that exact point.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
You are presuming that a society's governance structure is its basis.
I suggest otherwise.
Consider: If the people's values were different, would government be different in at least some behaviors?
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
I believe you are conflating the systems with the society.
Systems of governance are employed by people within society. Society is not instantiated by government or a lack thereof.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
You are operating on a fallacious construction.
You talk about a "statist society" vs an "anarchist society," but those terms combine two separate concepts and improperly compare them.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
A "statist" society has a monolithic governance structure. An "anarchist" society does not have such a structure.
What you are suggesting is inherently immoral isn't anything having to do with society, but with the systems employed for governance.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Unwrap the concepts and you can start to see how an "anarchist" society and a "statist" society are just people engaging in certain behaviors.
You are suggesting that one possible organization of those behaviors, "statism," is inherently immoral.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Look back in the thread. I agree!
And yet, I recognize that this organization of behaviors is not the only possible inherently immoral organization of behaviors.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
In fact, there are more possible inherently immoral organizations of behaviors outside of "statism" than within that small concept.
What I am suggesting is that this is actually a much bigger thing than the hill you appear willing to die on.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
With that in mind, I am suggesting that focusing solely on "statism bad!" to the exclusion of all other things is foolish and ineffective at achieving the goal of a moral society.
It is not the systems that matter, but the people...
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
It is the people and their propensity to act purposefully on their values who engage in purposeful behaviors.
Attacking systems will never end in a moral society while the people of that society hold immoral values or are unwilling to defend moral values.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
And with that, I'll end my rant here.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
I think I understand what you are saying.
Isn't what you are saying akin to this:
'Let's not focus on slavery, after all it's the people that matter more than the
system. Without slavery people would still try to exploit.
If not, what is the difference?
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
Well, the abolition of slavery lead to an increase in society's morality, didn't it?
Likewise the end of totalitarian regimes...
Why wouldn't the abolition of the privilege to violate rights in general have a similar effect?
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Was slavery abolished by people who were overwhelmingly in favor of slavery?
It appears you're extremely focused on arguing from your conclusion, that the state must be abolished, and as such, you're not being very thoughtful in your counterpoints.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
https://twetch.app/t/310cbb154353aafaf81fdbb052ef946567c648b61924ac62ddc3998b6482e55a
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
Remember, before slavery was abolished, the people had to recognize that slavery was bad.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
End the rant, start the dialogue?
Or do you mean you prefer to end this conversation?
That the way a society is organized (coercive vs. Voluntary) is not extraordinarily important seems not very convincing to me so far.
1Eyk15KEeYX9JwH8e98pqpX3kTUuY9d43C (622) ·
As in, I was done going on for that moment.
Also, you're doing it again... Conflation... "the way a society is organized"...
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
You already stated that statism is immoral.
First few people realized that slavery was bad, raised consciousness about the problem and then more and more people saw it until they were enough to stop its legal form.
13idDCKB2oZMuUPVnPJ74aWJModTUMKmSV (4245) ·
Imagine living during the time of slavery when most people still thought it was fine and arguing like you did:
'I used to be against slavery, but now I'm agnostic. It's not the system that matters most, but the people. Imagine what the slavers would do!'