I’m pretty uneasy about those kinds of questions myself. I think caring about ideals of justice and fairness inherently carries some amount of “…so your rules should be like my rules” along with it, and how could it not? Self-determination allows choosing rules and behaviors I think are bad, including horrifically bad.
Nonetheless. Me imposing my judgment and values on what people should do, shares enough of the problems with some faraway monolithic state doing so, that I probably just shouldn’t.
And again, hypothetical harms from self determination vs known really horrific crimes at extreme scales, many done for fairly shallow and otherwise heinous goals, to boot. I understand unease, I don’t understand defending present systems against even just the idea of trying some better ways.
If everyone was like you and me, anarchy would work perfectly fine as a social system. I don’t want to control anyone and I don’t care how anyone lives their life as long as it doesn’t directly harm me. But rules aren’t developed for reasonable people, but because of unreasonable people. Ultimately I’m more afraid of unreasonable people with no restrictions than I am of the present system.
But communities of people naturally, inevitably, develop rules to deal with unreasonable people.
In a way you’re just pointing out - “notice how some people are bad and must be controlled” (yes, clearly) and then arriving at “so the way we’re doing it now is better than what I’m imagining anarchists are suggesting”.
What I’m trying (probably failing) to say clearly is that - for me, the fundamental principle of *an-*archism - anti-hierarchical thinking - revolves around people in their own communities knowing what’s best for them. As an idea. As opposed to just gigantic new feudalism + boundlessly scary tech - knowing what’s best for folks. Which we have.
The launch into “but what if everyone can just do what they want” is…well, it’s you not thinking very hard. It’s not what I mean, I can’t speak for anyone else, but fairly sure it’s not what others mean either.
I absolutely get that communities will develop their own rules. I just don’t see a third option besides mob violence or creating a hierarchy. Either everyone collectively metes out justice, or you make justice someone’s job which creates a hierarchy of control. Maybe that’s too simplistic thinking?
What we have has big big problems, no doubt. Getting to a better place just takes so many big changes, I have a hard time visualizing getting from A to B.
I’m pretty uneasy about those kinds of questions myself. I think caring about ideals of justice and fairness inherently carries some amount of “…so your rules should be like my rules” along with it, and how could it not? Self-determination allows choosing rules and behaviors I think are bad, including horrifically bad.
Nonetheless. Me imposing my judgment and values on what people should do, shares enough of the problems with some faraway monolithic state doing so, that I probably just shouldn’t.
And again, hypothetical harms from self determination vs known really horrific crimes at extreme scales, many done for fairly shallow and otherwise heinous goals, to boot. I understand unease, I don’t understand defending present systems against even just the idea of trying some better ways.
It sounds like we disagree about that.
If everyone was like you and me, anarchy would work perfectly fine as a social system. I don’t want to control anyone and I don’t care how anyone lives their life as long as it doesn’t directly harm me. But rules aren’t developed for reasonable people, but because of unreasonable people. Ultimately I’m more afraid of unreasonable people with no restrictions than I am of the present system.
But communities of people naturally, inevitably, develop rules to deal with unreasonable people.
In a way you’re just pointing out - “notice how some people are bad and must be controlled” (yes, clearly) and then arriving at “so the way we’re doing it now is better than what I’m imagining anarchists are suggesting”.
What I’m trying (probably failing) to say clearly is that - for me, the fundamental principle of *an-*archism - anti-hierarchical thinking - revolves around people in their own communities knowing what’s best for them. As an idea. As opposed to just gigantic new feudalism + boundlessly scary tech - knowing what’s best for folks. Which we have.
The launch into “but what if everyone can just do what they want” is…well, it’s you not thinking very hard. It’s not what I mean, I can’t speak for anyone else, but fairly sure it’s not what others mean either.
I absolutely get that communities will develop their own rules. I just don’t see a third option besides mob violence or creating a hierarchy. Either everyone collectively metes out justice, or you make justice someone’s job which creates a hierarchy of control. Maybe that’s too simplistic thinking?
What we have has big big problems, no doubt. Getting to a better place just takes so many big changes, I have a hard time visualizing getting from A to B.
I struggle with that too, to be perfectly honest. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Almost none of them, if I’m really being honest.