I guess this is the day for blogging about comments. Those “ten followers” are really putting in overtime. Multiple accounts & all.
Here’s Sean II, which I take to mean he has at least two accounts, so as to help me look more important than I really am.
I’m still perplexed by the ambition of non-violence. In nature there are storms and there are calm seas.
In the case of MLK and Mahatma Gandhi I see two different reasons non-violence worked. In the US you had one side of the equation already accepting that violence is not the answer so the civil rights movement was not gunned down. In India, there were just too many people to mow down.
We have examples in history of populations that have been disseminated through force either by choice or by lacking the technology to overcome their opponents.
I agree with much of your philosophy but I keep getting stuck on this Vulcan fantasy. We are human and we will get violent when resources are stake.
There is an interesting take on Bonobos vs Chimps. Bonobos live in an environment where food is abundant and therefore strength plays a small part in securing food. Their society is run by the women. Chimps live where you have to work hard for your food and hence the stronger men run the society.
Technology has basically guaranteed food is on the table of every family without they having any idea of how it got there. Are humans in developed societies becoming more Bonobo like? If so, what happens when a Chimp thinking society spots that as a weakness.
When an Arab ship was lashed ashore in a storm in India, the crew got help from the locals to get back home and was able to report that India had no navy or fighting army to talk of. They came back in fleets and the rest was history.
Besides the reliance on high IQ to maintain peaceful anarchy, what do you see as the check valve for violence on a global scale?
I have another, far more detailed post in draft about some other nuances of Anarchy, but this is specific enough that I think I can pop something off in short order as a sort of mind-un-fuck. I’m specifically going to address his last sentence.
Sean II is doing exactly what all of you are supposed to be doing. Rather than just assume I’m a lunatic because I say things diametrically opposed to what Kanye West, the Kardashians, Leonardo DiCaprio, Harrison Ford and other entertainers are spewing forth (politicians, too: entertainers, just less popular), he actually puts his brain in gear and politely asks that I explain myself to further his understanding of what I’m attempting to get across.
Do I care whether he ultimately rejects it, or not? Not really. This is why I have my “revolving door blog.”
The essential problem is that most Anarchists write on the topic as though it’s some alternative political system that’s imposed, until such time as everyone is conditioned to be non-violent. Communism a-la Marx actually had many of these elements (with forced altruism as impetus), and we see how that went.
In the American libertarian-ish version of Anarchy, virtually every geopolitical problem is explained away as a consequence of American or Western intervention over long history “dot connecting,” particularly in the Middle East. The anarcho-libertarians are now bordering on overt pacifism, they’re so intransigent in their notions that if we just stopped intervening in international affairs, 7th Century Dirt Scratching Savage Rapists of goats and women who vow to kill you over your beliefs and thought would just leave us alone.
La-la land, which has become tantamount to a suicide pact over the ideology of non-intervention and non-initiation-of-force principles.
Fortunately, the recent revelations of ISIS intent (see here) should sign their death warrant. I’ll explain.
Let’s take American declaratory independence, constitutional encoding, and jurisprudence—under the umbrella of a monopoly state. It contains important, material elements of a suicide pact. If someone comes to your property and issues a threat of death or severe harm that’s credible, but not explicitly prescient—like a gun pointed at you, bomb in hand, or vile of poison—your legal obligation is to go no further than to report it to the “authorities.”
The other side of Golden-Rule Anarchy is Don’t Tread on Me Anarchy.
Any good anarchist, without a State that would prosecute him for murder, would immediately kill that person (or pay a professional to do so) if he could. I would, and I’d throw a party later so people could stand and toast me for acting in the highest traditions of gentlemanly manliness.
You need not wait around for someone to actually do it. That’s a suicide pact. And this is the very nitty gritty about what’s immoral about all states—even modern, benevolent democracies.
In the case where we have a state wrapped in a culture that we generally enjoy and make vast contributions, both voluntary and coerced to maintain, that state is the only practical means we have at our disposal to preemptively kill people who have explicitly stated they mean to do us harm when we have not been explicitly involved in any harm against them.
Carpet bombing every square inch of ISIS territory—women and children social support and indoctrination factory too—is the most anarchist thing to do in the entire world right now, even if it takes a state to get it done. It needs to be done, almost certainly will have to be done, and best to do it now, while the territory is still relatively small. We’re dealing with another state now, one that collects taxes, pays its fighters, has the moral and material support of women, and a baby factory and indoctrination centers for new fighters. And it recruits worldwide.
To make it clear: it is time that anyone issuing support or intention to do “jihad” be killed on sight, no matter where in the world, including a new mother blabbing on Facebook. There ought be no questions, no discussion, but instant death. This is anarchism, even if agents of a state carry it out because you can’t without having your own life ruined.
Anarchists need to stop their forever focus on The Golden Rule. It’s only half the equation. The other half is Don’t You Fucking Tread on Me! To leave off that essential part is to render most Anarchists I see, now, as a bunch of pussy pacifists. If people began killing people instantly who tread upon others because of spurious notions of what “free speech” is, you’d start magically seeing a lot more golden-rule behavior. People might actually start becoming polite and pleasant, and exercise extreme caution in ever issuing anything that could be reasonably construed as a credible threat verbally or in writing, to do explicit harm.
Does that address your comment, Sean II?