Here's a question: if a community in some country where the gov't has fallen has set themselves up an egalitarian community based on their own determination, is it then necessary for a say, "democratic" nations military to come in, take over and set up something the military experts deem their favorite system (especially if they have resources we want), or should they be left alone? Whether their system is "feasible," should they be "allowed" to live the way they want? If a company wants to buy their land for a factory, and they refuse, should they be forced to sell by a mighty government?

When someone is posed a question in this way, perhaps it takes away the fear factor of having something imposed on them, and turns the question around to where it really should be: is it moral to impose a system on others, even when the big red "A" may come up.

Views: 74

Replies to This Discussion

Anarchism can never be imposed on anyone as it presupposes voluntarism and the people themselves choosing to set such a system up. Where some "Anarchist militia" to force everyone to collectivize, it would not be Anarchism anymore.
Two big thumbs up on this Db0! Once force is on the table it ceases to be anarchist.
...because people don't understand what anarchism is. They imagine the overthrow of a government--and then where would we be, gasp, etc. They haven't thought through to the "oh yeah, now we can organize ourselves" place. Kind of like the ex-christian who asks himself, "now that I've left the church, how will I be moral?" Or the new atheist who wonders how the earth is held up in the sky.

State systems are like religions. They create a problem: "you are too evil to take care of yourselves. Without us, you'll have nothing." Even if that group consists of those same "evil" people. How can evil people regulate other evil people? Of course the answer is we are not. So we can take care of ourselves after all, because essentially we live most of our lives "as if" there were no government or God.
All people really have to do to understand anarchism is to look at their daily lives and how they navigate through an average day without someone telling that what to do at each moment. That is basically anarchism in a nut shell.
Off course they should be left alone, allowed to live the way they want, and they should not be forced to sell their land.

You would need and should have an Anarchist Militia to defend your liberated territory in the senario you described. What else is a community going to do? Politely ask a "mighty government" not to confiscate their land? Boycotting Walmart and calling for a general strike ain't gonna work in the long run.

To point out the obvious, if indigenous "Third World" people had military superiority to that of Europeans they would have never been dominated, colonized, and exploited which they still are today.

The First Italo–Ethiopian War
Battle of Hayes Pond
So they set up a militaia. Or, that is, those who choose to do so. And they remain independent.

BTW, where did we get "indiginous, third-world people?"

Why shouldn't they stand up to a Walmart? After all, it takes a government that imposes its will on the people to steal land. Walmart doesn't have a militia: they use the gov't.

And we still have an anarchy.
So they set up a militaia. Or, that is, those who choose to do so. And they remain independent.

BTW, where did we get "indiginous, third-world people?"

Why shouldn't they stand up to a Walmart? After all, it takes a government that imposes its will on the people to steal land. Walmart doesn't have a militia: they use the government in place. What good would an egalitarian system be for Walmart, if there is no centralized gov't there that claims all the money and resources to bribe their welfare and muscle from?

And we still have an anarchy.

And you've proven my point. The question was not "is anarchy viable." I never asked that. I asked if you believe it should be allowed to be. And you said yes. You believe people should choose for themselves rather than to be forced into things against their will. Because imposing a system on them is immoral.

And if that is true, it is true from within as well as without. Thank you.
If someone wants to "stand up" to Walmart, to each his own. Boycotting Walmart isn't going to start a revolution or abolish capitalism. I have more important battles to fight.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service