Hi, yes correct, real-time correction and feedback is impossible, so it pays to read the actual words. We all do this of course. The beauty of this format is you can take all the time you want, and it is impossible to fudge previous claims because we can directly quote each other, irrefutably. It helps keep honesty, takes emotional knee-jerking away, and opens up a genuine possibility for personal growth, bypassing ego - the scourge of our world (and I suspect an interdimensional interloper). I wouldn’t be who I am now if it wasn’t for exchanges like this. On with it.
If voluntarism, a priori, will not allow sovereign individuals to put a ruler in place if they wish it, which is your explicit stated desire here, then it (and you) is (are) authoritarian, by definition. The road to hell is often paved with excellent intentions. To not be authoritarian it would have to hold that there exist foundational principles that trump the ‘good’ that voluntarism seeks. There are – they are called rights/duties – but of course you cannot have that, because that would turn it into… wait for it… Liberalism.
Voluntarism either roots itself in freely held and renewed foundational rights, or it is functionally self-contradictory: – it orders people to be free of rulers, in all contexts; whatever they choose for themselves, because that’s what you think is good for them from your all-seeing perspective now. For someone who has given up on eternity, it seems you have not given up an eternal view. In other words, the power resides in the theory, the idea of ‘the good’ you hold – and not in the free, spontaneous choices of sovereign individuals, capable of revision and evolution way beyond your little view now, in perpetuity.
You are correct, you should familiarise yourself with Classical Liberalism – an excellent modern interpretation is Rawles Theory of Justice. You are right, we have much in common - you are a Liberal (not liberal) whether you know it or not, and clinging to labels like voluntarism/anarchism is doing you no favours. I have spelt out, in great detail now, why.
I did respond to your claim that minarchy/classical liberalism leads to the mi complex – I pointed out to you that liberalism is not, and never was Classical Liberalism, and that one major requirement of CL is that it can only function properly in political ‘units’ of appropriate population size/quality. The Military-Industrial-Intelligence oligarchy is a result of utterly illegitimate centralised power, and so-called ‘liberalism-capitalism’ is fundamentally a pseudo-socialism, throwing out some peanuts of so-called rights, that can be usurped by the mighty state at the drop of a hat. Classical Liberalism does not lead to this, and only a moment’s thought from the relevant perspective will show you that. If you don’t implement the theory, don’t blame the theory for the results of what you actually do.
Well you might not be, but I am certainly convinced that voluntary, mutually beneficial actions are the best way forward. What? Are you entertaining the notion that forced, mutually destructive actions may be a good idea? We’re surely just discussing which political theory has the best chance of maximising our mutual chances of this aren’t we – I didn’t realise that ‘hey, hell on earth might be a good idea’ was on the table? Of course voluntary, mutually beneficial activity is our aim – and our best current model for achieving that is CL – not half-assed anarchism/voluntarism. I’ve explained why (several times and ways now I think), but you’ve offered no alternative I haven’t already included in CL, and you’ve offered no critique of my position. Saying ‘well I just think the world would be better if no one was in charge…’ and then pointing out demons is not political theory, it is wishful thinking.
And of course politics is a way of managing power over others – what else would it be? I absolutely want to manage power over you friend – I want to be sure that you will not infringe on my basic liberty and pursuit of personal meaning and growth for your own selfish purposes. I assume you rather think that a good idea too. You are right, anarchism is not much of a political philosophy – I think it is personal, egoistic posturing; it is a statement of the ‘good’ that you hold to be true for everyone. You don’t want corrupt centralisation. Good, me neither. What causes corrupt centralisation – do the work, stop blaming it on bad guys/rulers? Two things – dumbass individuals (impossible to legislate against) and dumbass political systems. Centralisation – well, disperse political decision-making power to all members (rights/duties basis and democracy slapped on top), and do not dilute individual input (limit the size of the political grouping/society). So, Classical Liberalism, with its essential mighty dollop of decentralisation. And get this straight – whether the people in the next village decide to elect an emperor or not is, bluntly, none of your fucking business – as long as they keep their rights and you keep yours, everything will work out just fine. I will bet you that, in time, no one will be stupid enough to decide they want an Empress – but the transition period, globally, will be fascinating, there will be enough dramatic material for century’s worth of books, films and games…
I remain convinced that anarchists, libertarians, voluntarists, etc, are half-assed well intentioned Classical Liberals, who have been hoodwinked that so-called liberalism is actually the crap espoused by Libtards, a perfectly appropriate label – those jokers are basically clueless nutty children.
At this time a ‘video chat’ thing wouldn’t work for me – absolutely nothing personal; for years I have taped over laptop cameras, I don’t use skype, I don’t use my real name or much that could identify me (I keep my tinfoil neatly tucked in under the ears). It keeps me free to unleash honestly – and some egos, as you well know, really need taking down a peg or ten. I certainly wouldn’t consider you one of those I promise you, if I ever decide to ditch the anonymity it would be a pleasure to chat with you face to face.
One final word: – if you want to build a house, a half-assed foundation and first layer of bricks will probably restrict you to a rather dismal ground level shed – however nice your garden, and however beautifully you designed your upstairs bedrooms beforehand. Your ‘giving up on eternity’ brought an image straight to mind, and I’ll share it (this is not originally mine I should say) – it reminded me of a fish, swimming in the ocean, talking about how it had given up on water. I think if you start paying attention to the actual facts right under your nose, and less attention to flighty imagination and second-hand stories about the world, you’ll be a Classical Liberal blossoming here in eternity before you know it, and I for one think we’ll all be better for that. Db
RE: Anarchists Are Not Surprised By Political "Scandals"