A Case for Anarchism
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (58)
sorted by:
There are no responsibilities in an anarchy - just people doing what they will, right? What he's asking is who can stop an anarchy from logically turning into a tyranny because the strongest naturally asserts themselves and assume power?
It's completely dependent on what the individuals decide, if they believe they have a responsibility then they are responsible. I believe the idea that the strongest naturally asserts themselves a false premise, when it comes to violence It's the person unencumbered by morality that wins. That's why a lot of CEOs are psychopathic and sociopathic. It's the smartest that wins, it's the person that understands violence on a fundamental level not the strongest. I'd use Russia as an example Putin is not the strongest he's just willing to do what his competition will not. There's a difference between strength and ruthlessness.
So anarchy is whatever the individuals in the society choose it to be? Ok, then I'll make the case individuals in our society have made the choice (and affirm that choice every day) to have the form of government we live under.
It doesn't matter whether it's the smartest or the physically strongest that asserts their will on the rest - it's still will to power and the rest is means to an end. If authoritarian government is not antithetical to your particular definition of anarchy, then what's the argument about?
No anarchy is whatever the individual decides it to be
We've been at this. Society is made up by individuals and individuals live in a society. Absent some form of government and authority, what guarantees one individual's wants and needs will be respected by the other individuals? If we both live in an anarchy why shouldn't I steal your stuff because I decided I like it and it's fair that I should own it?