Warning. The following publications may induce intense reasoning.

Sunday, November 30, 2014

The Error of Anarcho-Capitalism

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

I am an Anarchist. Not what is commonly called an Anarcho-Capitalist. The difference being, ironically, not in my view of Capitalism, but in my understanding of social hierarchy.

Anarcho-Capitalists commonly define Anarchy as a social order without coercion; accepting an array of "voluntary hierarchies" as morally neutral or good.

I would like to dispute this definition, and show how any social hierarchy holds within it a logical error that always leads to abuse, coercion, and everything that is not freedom.

An "accepted hierarchy" is an oxymoron.

Hierarchy is, "any system of persons... ranked one above another." - Reference.com

Anarchy is a, "lack of obedience to an authority;" - Reference.com

In our strictly social context, a hierarchy is whenever one person can command another, while their group or society agrees with it. The original context, and the context that is still most relevant today, is when commanding a person under moral authority.

The best example of the fault in allegedly non-coercive hierarchies are cults.

In a cult, any member you would ask, will tell you that they participate and accept the authority of their leaders willingly and freely. Even when a cult does not yet decree or enforce moral rules, this structure is still given credence. There is no evidence to them being immoral, at that point.

However, eventually the hierarchy is normalized. Then, it has become socially acceptable for a higher-up to enjoy different moral standards than their lowers. This is encouraged through criticism & the threat of ostracizing, that only higher-ups can apply to their lowers. Everything a higher-up wrongly does is either misunderstood or untrue, while anything they claim about an underling is accepted, and acted upon immediately. The burden of proof is always on the underlings.

And that's when we point at them and say, "Cult!", and fear them. We fear them, because we know that the underlings will always consider it morally right to obey their highers. In the extreme, they will turn into consciousless murdering soldiers, with the pride of the group or society on display.

This is why I am deeply bothered when Anarcho-Capitalists, such as Stefan Molyneux, define hierarchy as, "a dentist that knows better than I do", while ignoring the historical context of the term!

For example, when a dentist is elevated in a society, even only in dentistry, they turn to decree their dental wisdom on others. As preposterous as it may sound, they are soon-enough accepted as morally righteous in doing any horrid act against the dentistry of others. Because, "they know better", and they are, "the authority", and to dispute them is to dispute the social order itself.

This is how ancient behaviors that reflect basic necessities are now illegal & taboo in the majority of the modern world:

- Catching or recycling your water.

- Growing your own crops & animals in unoccupied land; while subsidized industrial farmers produce inedible crops, such as animal-feed corn, while poisoning the land.

- Growing, trading, or consuming a variety of useful plants, such as cannabis & psilocybin mushrooms; while harmful synthesized pills are being sold as medicine.

This is all because popular professionals turn into leaders, and leaders turn into priests; the ever righteous priests of their own personal agendas.

No hierarchy is ever benign. In both language and practice, no person should ever be accepted as an "authority" on any matter. It may seem trivial to point out the social authority people gain. After all, what is a popular dentist or author to me? But soon enough it bites everyone back on the heine, if not marked out as unreasonable, and a danger to our well-being.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Exploring Societies

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

I had this idea that maybe, rather than a society organized over some ideology, nature designed us to function in societies that are based only on needs. Actual needs, like having a home and something to eat.

Apparently, this is a cool shirt print.

Ideologies change. That is the nature of ideas. They evolve, modify, and usually get better. We realize more, understand more thoroughly, and improve on our notions. [Generally speaking.]

But, needs stay the same. We always have the same five basic human needs: Shelter, Water, Food, People, and Freedom. Well, yeah, "freedom" can be contested, but either way I keep it listed. :=D

So, this would explain why all the communities that were ever based on an ideology, always found themselves quickly falling into turmoil, and splitting into conflicting sections. This easily explains the history of religions and philosophies.

However, this would also explain why it is that places that would have been expected to be extremely inhospitable, full of conflicting ideologies and strange peoples, all in one place, still exhibit the best of human societies!

America! Well, not everywhere in America, but this is definitely evident where the need for "freedom" had been safeguarded. In North America, especially in states like California, we see the most diverse and most advanced, liberal, and fascinating societies in the world!

Maybe societies should be planned for basic needs, rather than some higher ideological-political scheme, and then we would all be happier.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Revealing The Censor

Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

Anarchy in a community means that censorship is not an acceptable practice.

Copenhagen street art.

Censorship is the suppression of expression, using force. Usually, the censor is unidentified, and not answerable to those being censored.

This is dissimilar to the moderating of an activity. The role of a moderator is to limit the conversation visibly, according to the rules agreed on by the participants. And every action of the moderator is answerable to them!

The censor is, in principle, an authoritarian ruler, judge, and executioner, invulnerable to feedback.

Anarchy, in the context of community, can present itself in any number of possible social structures, but all of which will follow the same rule. All interactions are free. Not only voluntary, and definitely not coerced. But free!

Free, as in any person can, at any time, do what they wish, as long as they cause no physical harm or threat to another. No force can be inflicted on them. Even if agreement was previously made, such as a written contract, further disagreement, or nulling of contract, does not justify the use of force against them.

Those who betray trust, will simply not be trusted again - until forgiven, and that is the only moral strategy in a free society.

Even within private property, such as a house, where the owner can - if necessary - use force to remove people; those people are still free, and cannot be coerced or threatened, just for voluntarily entering the private property of another. It is immoral to abuse a guest.

To conclude, there is no place for censorship within any group, community, or organization. In order to moderate activities, methods of refereeing must be applied; while those who moderate are explicitly not above the same community standards.

It is only in this way that all community members are properly represented.

All Time Popular Posts