I am sure you believe anarchism would be better than the mess we have now, where elites rule us through manipulation. My son had a season in his life, seven long years, during which he travelled across Canada on freight trains and supported himself as a busker. During the winter, he would land in a particular city and rent an apartment with some like-minded people. He recounted to me a certain winter he spent in Ontario in the company of a number of other young men, all of whom were anarchists by persuasion. Their political activities kept them quite busy, with meetings every night. My son was not interested in their political worldview, and he noted a certain flaw in it. They were so busy with their political pursuits that they NEVER! washed the dishes after supper. They all had to go to their meetings, leaving the mundane duties of living to my son.
In the ensuing years, I had the honour of meeting some of these young anarchists and the privilege of engaging them in conversations. It was interesting to me that each one had come to a conclusion about the real world that would be formed by the success of their political strivings. To a person, each one declared that, in the new world order, they would be musicians.
What are we to do with a world of musicians? How are we going to talk some into digging ditches when ditches need to be dug? Will there be a transfer of power to those needed in the necessary evil of leadership, maybe with a proper attitude of serving the greater good, to tell us what role we play? Perhaps we get all the now-elites to dig our ditches in a righteous reversal of slave and owner, unfortunately playing a zero-sum game.
Personally, I have too much respect for the enormity of selfish elevation in terms of how our human nature really works to give that much power to anyone.
It’s important to note well, in my opinion, that anarchy is an absence of rulers, not an absence of rules, ie laws. An anarchic system might be founded on judges and protecting people from false accusations.
Anarchism to be successful requires emotionally mature individuals who accept personal responsibility for their own behaviors. A society where parents buy their children's friendship with toys and encourages them to do whatever they feel makes them happy (with little consideration for others) cannot adopt Anarchy as a serious approach to self-government.
Actually, governments haven't been around for 10,000 years. The first government was established in Sumer (Mesopotamia) in about 4,500 BC. 1,200 years passed before another government was formed. Even Japan had no government 3,000 years ago. In our lifetimes many primitive people have lived in stateless societies. Although governments claimed jurisdiction over their territories, government agents tended to leave them alone because they had nothing worth stealing. The first humans appeared millions of years ago. Our species, Homa sapiens, which appeared about 300,000 years ago, is the only species to have lived under governments.
I still can't let go of the constitution though, it's like Hammarubi's code to me. I get what you mean though. I usually get along with anarchists and have since HS more than even some of my Republitarian friends.
I look at the current chaos in Hati( another reiteration of it) as the population rejects their current imposed government wondering if stability will eventually break out there
My Christian Worldview includes a quirk of nature, putting us all in opposition to the righteousness of God. There is nothing in your descriptions that deal with that quirk. Hence, we would be subject to the same forces, sooner or later. I hire my protection, give them the means to repel others who want my stuff, and they end up wanting my stuff anyways. What stops them? Market forces?
I understand that the US Constitution intentionally splits power between three parts that were designed to monitor each other. Is that so? The notion of leadership as a “necessary evil” is an old one (Thomas Paine, I believe.) I see it in those terms because I am sure there are many things required in a free-and-open society, including an authority to limit self-driven men who want it less free and certainly less open. There is also needful oversight in the building of infrastructure which does not happen without a concerted effort and financial support. Reducing society to a loose collection of heavily armed individuals is not any way to live. And ultimately, any society that moves too far towards the individual and further away from the collective can do nothing but go there. How else do you stop people who are not on board with the whole idea of symbiosis from taking your food?
I would agree with you, in relation to these young rebels. The questions, however, remain. Can you disabuse me of the idea that Anarchism denotes a dismissal of the notion of the necessity of leadership? I truly do not trust the expressions of unadulterated human nature in myself or anyone else. Outside of the influences of strong accountability any and every political construct we have devised crashes and burns because of it. How does Anarcho-libertarianism deal with that?
I am sure you believe anarchism would be better than the mess we have now, where elites rule us through manipulation. My son had a season in his life, seven long years, during which he travelled across Canada on freight trains and supported himself as a busker. During the winter, he would land in a particular city and rent an apartment with some like-minded people. He recounted to me a certain winter he spent in Ontario in the company of a number of other young men, all of whom were anarchists by persuasion. Their political activities kept them quite busy, with meetings every night. My son was not interested in their political worldview, and he noted a certain flaw in it. They were so busy with their political pursuits that they NEVER! washed the dishes after supper. They all had to go to their meetings, leaving the mundane duties of living to my son.
In the ensuing years, I had the honour of meeting some of these young anarchists and the privilege of engaging them in conversations. It was interesting to me that each one had come to a conclusion about the real world that would be formed by the success of their political strivings. To a person, each one declared that, in the new world order, they would be musicians.
What are we to do with a world of musicians? How are we going to talk some into digging ditches when ditches need to be dug? Will there be a transfer of power to those needed in the necessary evil of leadership, maybe with a proper attitude of serving the greater good, to tell us what role we play? Perhaps we get all the now-elites to dig our ditches in a righteous reversal of slave and owner, unfortunately playing a zero-sum game.
Personally, I have too much respect for the enormity of selfish elevation in terms of how our human nature really works to give that much power to anyone.
It’s important to note well, in my opinion, that anarchy is an absence of rulers, not an absence of rules, ie laws. An anarchic system might be founded on judges and protecting people from false accusations.
💯 thank you for sharing your journey… This is a message about a system / lifestyle & future many of us want, but don’t know about.
Anarchism to be successful requires emotionally mature individuals who accept personal responsibility for their own behaviors. A society where parents buy their children's friendship with toys and encourages them to do whatever they feel makes them happy (with little consideration for others) cannot adopt Anarchy as a serious approach to self-government.
Hmmm. Have never heard of this. Definitely intrigued to read more of your work!
Love it!
Actually, governments haven't been around for 10,000 years. The first government was established in Sumer (Mesopotamia) in about 4,500 BC. 1,200 years passed before another government was formed. Even Japan had no government 3,000 years ago. In our lifetimes many primitive people have lived in stateless societies. Although governments claimed jurisdiction over their territories, government agents tended to leave them alone because they had nothing worth stealing. The first humans appeared millions of years ago. Our species, Homa sapiens, which appeared about 300,000 years ago, is the only species to have lived under governments.
I still can't let go of the constitution though, it's like Hammarubi's code to me. I get what you mean though. I usually get along with anarchists and have since HS more than even some of my Republitarian friends.
Thanks Chris
Always a pleasure to read your ponderings
I look at the current chaos in Hati( another reiteration of it) as the population rejects their current imposed government wondering if stability will eventually break out there
My Christian Worldview includes a quirk of nature, putting us all in opposition to the righteousness of God. There is nothing in your descriptions that deal with that quirk. Hence, we would be subject to the same forces, sooner or later. I hire my protection, give them the means to repel others who want my stuff, and they end up wanting my stuff anyways. What stops them? Market forces?
I understand that the US Constitution intentionally splits power between three parts that were designed to monitor each other. Is that so? The notion of leadership as a “necessary evil” is an old one (Thomas Paine, I believe.) I see it in those terms because I am sure there are many things required in a free-and-open society, including an authority to limit self-driven men who want it less free and certainly less open. There is also needful oversight in the building of infrastructure which does not happen without a concerted effort and financial support. Reducing society to a loose collection of heavily armed individuals is not any way to live. And ultimately, any society that moves too far towards the individual and further away from the collective can do nothing but go there. How else do you stop people who are not on board with the whole idea of symbiosis from taking your food?
I would agree with you, in relation to these young rebels. The questions, however, remain. Can you disabuse me of the idea that Anarchism denotes a dismissal of the notion of the necessity of leadership? I truly do not trust the expressions of unadulterated human nature in myself or anyone else. Outside of the influences of strong accountability any and every political construct we have devised crashes and burns because of it. How does Anarcho-libertarianism deal with that?