Definitely An Anarchist

I envision a society where there is both individual liberty and social equality. I envision a society where all economic or social transactions are mutualist and voluntary. Capitalism is a fraud which actually perpetuates State intervention into the market. True supporters of a free market cannot but be Anarchists. On social issues, we should live and let live. Everyone has rights to do whatever they want in their personal lives, so long as they are not harming those same rights of others.

SJobst SJobst
22-25, M
5 Responses Mar 25, 2009

respect and appreciate!

"I appreciate any reasoned debate. I am approaching you as an equal and I expect to be treated in a similar manner."<br />
<br />
Indeed, I wouldn't have it any other way. I myself have made many transformations ideologically at different times, so I know where other people are coming from. The tone of your post demonstrates that you are honest, sincere, intelligent, and open-minded.<br />
<br />
"How can true equality be assured in a society void of governmental controls? If there is no federal government involvement in economic matters what entity or entities will protect private individuals from big business?"<br />
<br />
Most anarchists will probably express how governments have always tended to benefit exactly these big business and banking interests, at the expense of the less socially advantaged in society. <br />
<br />
Manners in which governments do this include corporate subsidies, corporate welfare ("bailouts"), limited liabilities, tariffs, and legisltation which restricts the rights of the workers or consumers to hold these corporations accountable.<br />
<br />
"Who is responsible for the enforcement of numerous laws and social contracts such as your "live and let live" policy?"<br />
<br />
It would be about the roots and not symptoms. Many anarchists would undoubtedly express how it is the government's interference in the social and economic arenas which have led to many of these problems. <br />
<br />
A primary example may be how governments have dealt with narcotics as a criminal problem and not a health issue. All efforts at prohibition have merely intensified the harmful and detrimental effects of the problem. It has created a criminal underclass to which many crimes such as homicides can be directly traced to. <br />
<br />
Society is generally far more violent and crime-ridden than in the past. Yet government control was never as much a reality as it is now. Many anarchists believe there is a direct correlation between the two.<br />
<br />
"In the event of an invasion what group or groups would be responsible for national defense and who would control that group?"<br />
<br />
The model of the early American colonies and of such contemporary countries as Switzerland and Costa Rica perhaps provide an alternative model. Many anarchists envision something along the lines of "citizens' militias" to meet such a potentiality. <br />
<br />
The American militia defeated the British, who were regarded as the most powerful empire (and certainly maritime) at the time. In the 14th century, the Swiss militias resoundly defeated successive Austrian invasions and have since ensured that Switzerland remain a sovereign country.<br />
<br />
"My point is that there are too many things in which government has become inextricably bound. The dissolution of government would mean the systematic failure of every institution reliant on government involvement."<br />
<br />
You bring up an excellent point, one which appears to be the most untenable aspect of anarchism in the perceptions of most people. <br />
<br />
Anarchists essentially believe that free-markets and voluntary, mutual aid associations could provide these services cheaper and more efficiently. <br />
<br />
Plus, it would remain in the hands of those directly affected and not a perogative of the State to decide its own terms and perpetuate its interests.<br />
<br />
There is a concept known as "horizon anarchism", which is a theory of achieving libertarian ob<x>jectives in a gradual manner, beginning with the most pressing issues that affect individual rights and then extend this to other realms.<br />
<br />
Anarchists generally reject all violent or coercive means to realize their goals, which would be anathema to their central principles of non-aggression and opposition to coercion. <br />
<br />
We can fr<x>ame this issue within our own American context. Most Americans do not realize there are numerous guarantees of their rights in the Constitution, which likewises restricts the duties and powers of the State.<br />
<br />
Libertarian anarchists essentially believe in empowering the people, who have come to neglect their natural rights and abilities. There is remarkable power inherent in the workers and consumers, if only they cooperated together to achieve these rights. <br />
<br />
Private charitable contributions are actually much greater annually than any of the government subsidies to various institutions. An example may be contributions to the National Endowment for the Arts, which dwarfed any governmental aid. <br />
<br />
Many other examples may be given here but I will leave these for consideration. Notice also that throughout, I did not make any definitive statements. <br />
<br />
There is no one single intellectual doctrine which all the anarchists embrace, although they are united by a central philosophy that opposes Statism and unnatural hierarchies (family is an example of a natural hierarchy, while anarchists only reject those which are abstract and artificial), and all coercive monopolies. So the preceeding was merely my own personal interpretation, susceptible to my own limitations as an individual.

Allow me to preface this by saying I am not here to defend Capitalism or American Democracy both of which I view as phenomenally flawed. I merely ask these questions to engage in an academic debate. Also please realize that when I question anarchy in a philosophical manner I am using the traditional definition of anarchy as a social system devoid of any form of government. Essentially I am not targeting you specifically SJobst but anarchism as a social philosophy.<br />
<br />
How can true equality be assured in a society void of governmental controls? If there is no federal government involvement in economic matters what entity or entities will protect private individuals from big business? Who is responsible for the enforcement of numerous laws and social contracts such as your "live and let live" policy? In the event of an invasion what group or groups would be responsible for national defense and who would control that group? How would public education be able to survive the elimination of central government? My point is that there are too many things in which government has become inextricably bound. The dissolution of government would mean the systematic failure of every institution reliant on government involvement.<br />
<br />
I appreciate any reasoned debate. I am approaching you as an equal and I expect to be treated in a similar manner.

yeah!!

Right on. When humans live to the potential to be truly human, then maybe we will stop acting towards and treating each other like animals.