Natural doesn’t mean peaceful or pleasant. Nature is jam packed with violence and conflict. The universe is an exceptionally violent place, that is natural.
Arguments appealing to nature are nonsensical to begin with.
Animals murder and assault each other in nature. That is “natural” too. Doesn’t mean it’s what we should strive to either.
I think when appealing to nature is being used as argument, it has to be backed up by consequentialist principle, that there should not be any harm inflicted to anyone.
To give examples, one could say homosexuality is natural, but as long as both parties consent, it should not be an issue. However, in the case of paedophilia despite being natural, the child is getting hurt. A Jewish Roman historian noted that children in a pederastic relationship clearly don’t like it.
The nature argument is used most prominently by conservatives and religious people to say homosexuality is bad (though I know scientifically it exists in animals too).
The nature argument is used precisely by the people who don’t use the harm principle and instead brute force assert divine mysticism (christians, muslims mostly).
Can you send the source for that historian thing, I’d be interested.
Isn’t the natural order, chaos?
At least lawlessness anyway.Isn’t chaos just order on a scale to large to comprehend by the individual?
Tankies like tanks.
One could say the same thing for Communism, or any form of government, or organized crime, or anything. Hell murder and violence are a constant in nature, so one might say nature is violent and unfair and we should do better to overcome our natural instincts to improve society.
The closest thing to the natural order is feudal warlordism, which is violent enforcement for its own sake.
Also, nothing is stopping you from starting a co-op, or a commune in a capitalist country, you are allowed to do it. If you tried to practice capitalism in a communist country, communism would be violently enforced upon you.
Someone hasn’t read Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. That book absolutely tears this argument apart and argues that cooperation is actually natural and competition is not as important to humans.
I love that you thought this was a rebuttal. Some people never questioned the first lies they were told as a child.
What’s the lie? In general, throughout written history (and even before), humanity has been tribal and violent.
The fact that we live in one of the most peaceful times in recorded history is a pretty damning statement on our past behavior.
The fact that a few violent psychopaths managed to subjugate large sections of society doesn’t make it anymore natural than claiming natural order of bovine is to live in a factory farm.
It was right in front of you the whole time. All you had to do was start questioning the first lies you were told as a child and not to accept them as gospel.
You have still not answered the question: what’s the lie?
they did. you’re illiterate.
I did, you just didn’t understand the answer. The lie is you declaring it to be our natural state. How did you miss that?
The stone age was not nearly as violent as the movies make it out to be.
How is this related to anarchism? Capitalism is just an easy, but also easy to exploit economic system, while anarchism is a form of government. Those are completely different categories.
If, for example, someone switched the usa or russia to socialism right now, their government would still be full of corrupt fascist scum exploiting regular people.
Capitalism is an hierarchy, which anarchism opposes. Saying anarchism is a form of government is like saying transparent is a colour.
They did try to switch russia to socialism. It worked for like 2 years before the people in power decided they want to stay in power. And so it was no longer socialism.
transparent is absolutely a color. i just move the alpha channel to 0% to pick transparent on my phone.
same with anarchism.
Sure, brother, let me just grab my transparent pencil to finish the glass windows in the picture book.
