Anarchy Is For Everyone

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by christian (here)


By the way, Stefan Molyneux, despite the interesting thoughts he comes up with at times, is super creepy when it comes to his take on family. He helped a lot of people to think for themselves, but he is also responsible for a lot of families breaking apart.

This is a quote from him:

"Deep down I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century."

More about Molyneux and his take on families is in this article from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...fdr-defoo-cult

I've got to say, that's as clear a "hit piece" as I've ever seen....

Molyneux stays very true to his philosophy of voluntarism and relationships that are not forced (ie tax payer & the state, parents and children fall under that too). if you have another link, I'd read it but that one is really just character assassination centered on one story with a very biased writing perspective.

besides, this portion of your post is basically the logical fallacy "add Homenon" and I'm not really sure why you ignored the message & went after the messager.....


so... back to the topic!

Posted by dianna (here)
would anyone like to comment on this? Would anyone like to just make a statement on how they are anarchists in their daily lives, or in their pasts and why they felt the need to not be conventional?[/B]

I am a coward anarchist, I only do what I want when I know doing so won't cause any issues.

I run redlights and stop signs when there is clearly no one there, I ensure everything at work is caught up (ie i fullfill my position description) and take long lunches or leave early, I ride a motorcycle and skip to the front of traffic when safe to, ignore speed limit signs, ignore most signs, go to bed when I waNT and generally try to be my own person as much as possible.

Hehe, there seems to some weird hypnotic connection between "anarchy" and "breaking the law". Anarchy never has and never will mean, to act in a way that breaks the law. Anarchy is self governance. A person can live in this society and still be an anarchist. The argument is similar to the one about love / fear. Some think that if you choose out of love, then you are stupid because you always choose against yourself. Choosing out of love and choosing out of fear very often lead to the same choice -- they are not exclusive, this is just some persistent perception of it.

The reason I am bringing this up is certainly not to pick on you Target , but to keep in everyone's mind that when we think of what Anarchy is, it's hard not to think of "breaking the law" because this is the only difference between Anarchy and forms of control - is the difference in actions so that breaking the law gets an unfair association with anarchy .. in fact, now that I think of it, this may well have been by design. Our social and political structures are incredible complex and very well thought out to maximize control.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)
...
There you have it. People create corporations, people create the environment in which corporations act as straw men, people acquiesce to that. Fighting a corporation or corporations in general is fighting shadows, as you say. We, the people, cast shadows.

I didn't create any government or corporation. And the few people that create them are not necessarily evil or wrong -- it is the idea that we have a legal entity allowed called a "corporation" that is the problem. How did this problem get created? By another soul-less structure called a "government" not by people. People now create corporations because it becomes the sole way to compete in big business, no people who start corporations really have any choice in the matter, but once a corporation is established, it enable moral bankruptcy in people. that would other wise would never exist at all.

You make it sound like it's all just people, but it's not, it's people, plus the ability of corporation to protect those people against any of their actions or policies. Sometimes a locked door keeps an honest man, honest.

But this isn't really the point of the topic, we are off a bit on a tangent

[christian]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
we are off a bit on a tangent

Indeed. But you're really contradicting yourself. You say:

we have a legal entity allowed called a "corporation" that is the problem. How did this problem get created? [. . .] not by people.

Then you go on to say:

People now create corporations

I could also go at it from another angle, and quote this:

How did this problem get created? By another soul-less structure called a "government"

Then I'd ask you: How did governments get created, by whom?


-------


People creating institutions, corporations, or organizations virtually cannot be abolished. To abolish that, you would need either an institution or everybody on the planet would have to work towards this of their own accord.

It's not necessary at all to get rid of the idea of shared responsibility, as we have it when you sue a corporation. I think it's reasonable to have both, shared and individual responsibility. At the moment, obviously many criminal individuals at the top of many corporations are not being held accountable. There are many reasons for that, but it all boils down to the fact that we, the people, allow all this. We can stop it, if we want. To stop the atrocities that are going on, there is simply no need to abolish corporations in general. But if we would abolish corporations in general, this would not automatically solve our problems.

[panopticon]

Posted by Eram (here)
if you put 100 psychopathic inmates on an island and give them anarchy.... would it succeed?
if you were to imply anarchy on the world right now... would it succeed?

It still comes back to consciousness.
A certain level is necessary for it to be able to work and for the little I know about the idea of anarchy, this issue is not addressed properly.

This has actually been addressed ad nauseum by the major Social Anarchist thinkers.

I am not very knowledgeable on the theorists that Christian mentioned earlier because they come from the libertarian right, anarcho-capitalist, position where I am more from a centrist to left-centrist position.

I have read a bit of Mises but found his arguments somewhat self serving, counter-intuitive and contrived. Not bad, there are some aspects that I've agreed with for a transition away from the present system however I advocate the removal of competition over capital as the central motivator for human interactions and, as best I know, that is in opposition to the market centric view of the right. (Please Christian correct me here because I've no understanding of Hoppe [outside of a cursory understanding of his view on 'covenant communities' which I see as being intolerant and unaccepting and little different from elitist 'gated communities'] or Rothbard's position on this).

Others think Mises ideas are great and that's really the beauty of Anarchism we can agree to hold different positions yet still be inclusive in our ideas of how to go about societal reconstruction.

While Molyneux is quite popular I find him a little bit preachie for my liking and, as he's also from the right, much of what he says I simply have a different view on. That being said I haven't listened to a podcast by him in a few years so might revisit his channel to see if he's changed his delivery etc.

I would like you to define what you mean by "consciousness" (you've used it a number of times), so I can respond better to your question, as there has been material written about consciousness within Social Anarchist literature (for example Kropotkin, Chomsky) however the way it is used may be different to yours.

For example:

Hence the prerequisite of an anarchist revolution is a period of consciousness-raising in which people gradually become aware of submissive/authoritarian traits within themselves, see how those traits are reproduced by conditioning, and understand how they can be mitigated or eliminated through new forms of culture...
...consciousness-raising is considered an essential part of any anarchist movement. For anarchists, its important to "build the new world in the shell of the old" in all aspects of our lives and creating an anarchist culture is part of that activity.
An Anarchist FAQ

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Posted by Milneman (here)
From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

What's that mean in plain english? :D

I take it this is a joke but just in case it isn't.

From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

Definitions:

Structural Actors: Any form of organisation that acts from within the vertical axis of power and control on individuals/groups. This would include, but not be limited to, Governments, bureaucracies, Judiciary, high tier level NGO's (international NGO's could be used as an example of peer to peer). Add your own, there's heaps.

Social Norms: The accepted norms of a society that are formulated within that society through cultural, historical, philosophical, social and environmental factors. These are usually instilled in a person from an early age (via what is referred to as primary socialisation) though can alter over the life of an individual as understandings change within the society they are part of.

Discursive "dance" or process: The way in which individuals and societies discuss the various understandings of what is a social norm. These processes work both on and through the individuals in complex ways that alter the way in which as a collective the social norms are understood and constructed.

Not all social norms are accepted by all people and there was an interesting paper written a few years ago that showed that a committed minority group could sway the general consensus of a group/society. This "tipping point" for general acceptance of the new norm was when 10% of the population "agreed" (or at least ceased to disagree) with the minorities perspective.

The paper is 'Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities'.

As a student of philosphy you will undoubtably find Freire's 'Pedagogue Of The Oppressed' of interest. In this he states:

To surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation. Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle.
(Book downloadable here)

Hope this helps.

-- Pan

[christian]

Posted by panopticon (here)
I advocate the removal of competition over capital as the central motivator for human interactions and, as best I know, that is in opposition to the market centric view of the right.

I don't use the labels "left" and "right" when I think about that at all, but you're right about the market centric view of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. I don't think competition over capital can be removed without either institutionalized force, which in itself would seek a monopoly in the competition over capital, or without every person working towards that of their own accord.

Competition is perfectly fine with me, it's just when people's greed has no limits that problems arise. I think this is best kept in check if everybody checks him or herself and boycotts anybody who is not able to keep him or herself in check, also offering guidance to those.

[panopticon]

Posted by christian (here)
I don't use the labels "left" and "right" when I think about that at all, but you're right about the market centric view of Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe. I don't think competition over capital can be removed without either institutionalized force, which in itself would seek a monopoly in the competition over capital, or without every person working towards that of their own accord.

Competition is perfectly fine with me, it's just when people's greed has no limits that problems arise. I think this is best kept in check if everybody checks him or herself and boycotts anybody who is not able to keep him or herself in check, also offering guidance to those.

Again, we don't disagree. We simply are coming at the same problem from different perspectives.

My view of implementation revolves around decentralised "communities" (for want of a better word though not necessarily living within close proximity as the term "community" implies, though they can, but at least within the same geographical area) that incorporate a combination of techniques as a means of becoming self-reliant. The creation of a local currency based on maybe Hour Credits (using, for example, the excellent Open Source modular Cyclos banking platform as a means of accounting until it is no longer needed -- that is until the understanding of personal responsibility has become a norm), the gradual adoption of localised food production (including a food redistribution program & if it's not practical for food to be grown by the group then a variation on community supported agriculture), water harvesting (where practical), individual/collective power supply (via any number of available approaches dependent on the location etc), creation of an association so a NFP Charity Tax concession can be claimed by the new "entity" (use the system against itself) and following establishment of the NFP Charity income redirection into the scheme for individual tax concessions, financial consolidation and group economic development. Then use a similar approach to that adopted by the Basque Mondragon Corporation for business ventures run by the "community".

My view is not that the "community" locks itself away and removes itself from the broader society. In doing that only suspicion would follow ("your some kind of cult" etc). Rather the use of this form of horizontally structured approach would allow for differing levels of inclusion/participation from not only members of the "community" but also those who are not formally part of it.

That is part of my vision for a transition process...

Think long term and gradually produce the world we want to see.

-- Pan

[Milneman]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by Milneman (here)
From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

What's that mean in plain english? :D

I take it this is a joke but just in case it isn't.

From my perspective the understanding individuals have of the various structural actors moral legitimacy is part of the discursive dance of social norms that constantly evolve and are constructed then deconstructed, formulated and then challenged. There may be some areas that as individuals we agree on but others that are subjective and reliant on the cultural, social, political and philosophical positions of the individual and the society/culture in which they are either members of or come from.

Definitions:

Structural Actors: Any form of organisation that acts from within the vertical axis of power and control on individuals/groups. This would include, but not be limited to, Governments, bureaucracies, Judiciary, high tier level NGO's (international NGO's could be used as an example of peer to peer). Add your own, there's heaps.

Social Norms: The accepted norms of a society that are formulated within that society through cultural, historical, philosophical, social and environmental factors. These are usually instilled in a person from an early age (via what is referred to as primary socialisation) though can alter over the life of an individual as understandings change within the society they are part of.

Discursive "dance" or process: The way in which individuals and societies discuss the various understandings of what is a social norm. These processes work both on and through the individuals in complex ways that alter the way in which as a collective the social norms are understood and constructed.

Not all social norms are accepted by all people and there was an interesting paper written a few years ago that showed that a committed minority group could sway the general consensus of a group/society. This "tipping point" for general acceptance of the new norm was when 10% of the population "agreed" (or at least ceased to disagree) with the minorities perspective.

The paper is 'Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities'.

As a student of philosphy you will undoubtably find Freire's 'Pedagogue Of The Oppressed' of interest. In this he states:

To surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation. Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle.
(Book downloadable here)

Hope this helps.

-- Pan

First lesson my philosophy teacher taught me was if you can't be understood with what you're saying, you're either trying to establish your reputation as a philosopher, or you don't understand what you're saying...so I'll take it you're establishing your reputation. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I see light at the end of the tunnel here Pan, but I think when I come out at the other end it's not anarchy that I'm looking at. It's personal responsibility, ownership of self, and responsible behavior in a community. The issue I have here I guess is...I'm sensing, maybe incorrectly, that moral relativism and anarchy go hand in hand...is that a fair statement?

[Milneman]

DeDukshyn,

Sorry buddy...lol I'm often at work thinking about things and have AHA! moments! So I'm sweeping a floor tonight and I have an AHA! moment about your post!

I don't believe that a sense of moral legitimacy is determined by natural selection. There are very obviously many, many factors at work. This said number 4 isn't relevant for my response.

Ok, I can accept that. I can even agree with it! Except that....

Foremost: Natural instinct. Like how a new mother cat just knows how to love and care for it's offspring.

Ok now I think we might be in trouble. Natural instinct....is....what? Where does it come from for a cat?

[panopticon]

Posted by Milneman (here)
The issue I have here I guess is...I'm sensing, maybe incorrectly, that moral relativism and anarchy go hand in hand...is that a fair statement?

Moral legitimacy is to do with structures of control/power that exist in the vertical.
Anarchism is a horizontal model.

**UPDATE**

Only just noticed you said moral relativism sorry.

If you want to believe that morals are created external from society then go for it.
It's your right to believe that.
Many Christian Anarchists may well believe that, but it's nothing to do with Anarchism itself.

-- Pan

Just to add (without creating a new post) that there are many Christian Anarchists. Try this site for an indication:
http://www.jesusradicals.com/

There are also many who believe (myself included) that the early formation of the Church (prior to it becoming co-opted with structuralist tendencies) was that of anarchist collectives. The decentralised nature of the early church and its focus on assisting both those who were members of the kitchen table congregation and those who were not, shows very definite Anarchist ideals.



BTW I'm not a philosopher. I work for a living.

[Milneman]

The best philosophers, like ourselves, do work for a living.

Never did thank you for the apple.

[panopticon]

There are heaps of ways for anyone to research Anarchism if they're interested.

The links below are mainly to do with Social Anarchism so anyone who has any other stuff please add on:

The Anarchist FAQ has a section on religious Anarchism (focusing on Christian Anarchists):
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secA3.html#seca37

A full copy of Volume 1 of the FAQ (over 4000 pages!) is available here:
http://libcom.org/library/anarchist-faq-v-1

The Anarchist library (with over 2000 titles):
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/

My personal favourite, The Anarchist Archives:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/

Then there's One Big Torrent which focuses mainly on Chomsky and Social Anarchist related material:
http://onebigtorrent.org/

If you want one really good read then try Emma Goldman's:
Anarchism: What it really stand for.

An audio recording of the above essay read by Lee Elliott is available here:
https://librivox.org/anarchism-and-o...-emma-goldman/

For your convienience I've embedded it below


Direct Link

A series of videos using the same audio with lots of piccies are also available on Youtube (though audio isn't a good as they added music):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=U7CvRzeyLWo
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6NY6e3pcvhY
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mmfIJhnZkaU

Rather buy a book (for someone special this holiday season mayhap?) then try:
http://www.akpress.org

Anyone got any more?

-- Pan

[panopticon]

For those who might be more interested in understanding the history of Anarchism try Peter Marshall's excellent tome 'Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism' (available for download from here).

He covers Daoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Individual Anarchists, Social Anarchists, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin & Goldman.

He even has chapters on Tolstoy (a Christian Anarchist who had a great influence on another bloke...) and Gandhi.

The concepts of non-violent civil disobedience Gandhi adopted he attributed in part to Tolstoy (and Ruskin BTW). This influence came from a letter Tolstoy wrote in 1908 to an Indian revolutionary and that Gandhi also read which is known as 'A Letter to a Hindu' (originally in Russian but translation available here or with Gandhi's introduction here).

-- Pan

[Mike Gorman]

The central 'problem' for Anarchy, which is nicely articulated here in glowingly social theoretical terminology (it would make a university sociologist purr)
is that it demands a certain level of sophistication, development, agreed upon definitions, tacit boundaries-the same problems that beset all social assemblies...like
people who enjoy control, imposing their will on individuals less able to physically defend themselves, stealth-mode psychopaths who manipulate folks of good will for their own ends.....
I believe in the underlying objectives of Anarchy, the pursuit of freedom (happiness if you like), the removal of vertical structures of central power-but I have little faith in the current development of people
to be able to sustain Anarchy authentically.

[TargeT]

Posted by christian (here)
I think Stefan is a very intelligent man, but he often seems to have very little heart or emotional intelligence.

this is also a failing of mine, so i suppose that's why I don't see it.


however, I would not call it emotional intelligence, perhaps emotional empathy; I have a very high level of emotional intelligence and (mostly) control, this causes issues when I relate to people and don't understand why they can't control their own emotions... even that statement seems a bit lacking in emotional empathy.

I think the few family's that were broken up by anarchy inspired ideas probably had fundamental issues present already... the article talks about a young man that removed himself from his family at 18 and cut communication off; how many families do you know out there that have members who wont talk to each other? This seems very common with out blaming a person or a philosophy, that is my main issue with the article.

I don't think anarchy will break up families at all unless there is a reason for it, I am a parent; I socialize with other parents, I know how domineering the parent-child relationship often is. Yes the parent-child dictatorship CAN be a benevolent one, but often is not. On the "light side" you have parents who live vicariously through their children and apply massive pressure on them to achieve and so many other situations, on the "dark side" you have abuse of ALL levels, physical, sexual, verbal, mental, and mostly this is done mostly for the benefit, comfort, and/or neurosis of the parent.

So, as a parent, it's hard for me not to see a lot of truth in Stefan's statements, ESPECIALLY here in the Caribbean where children are treated vastly different from anywhere else I have seen (and the violent crime rates show what happens when bad parenting is present).

If Anarchy theory causes people to break free from these families and seek professional help (this is a major part of the article that I took issue with, Stefan is a huge fan of therapy for childhood issues, the article insinuates that is not the case) something that Stefan encourages; then I think its a good thing that these young humans have broken free from their family structures, especially at 18+.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
Hehe, there seems to some weird hypnotic connection between "anarchy" and "breaking the law". Anarchy never has and never will mean, to act in a way that breaks the law. Anarchy is self governance. A person can live in this society and still be an anarchist. The argument is similar to the one about love / fear. Some think that if you choose out of love, then you are stupid because you always choose against yourself. Choosing out of love and choosing out of fear very often lead to the same choice -- they are not exclusive, this is just some persistent perception of it.

The reason I am bringing this up is certainly not to pick on you Target , but to keep in everyone's mind that when we think of what Anarchy is, it's hard not to think of "breaking the law" because this is the only difference between Anarchy and forms of control - is the difference in actions so that breaking the law gets an unfair association with anarchy .. in fact, now that I think of it, this may well have been by design. Our social and political structures are incredible complex and very well thought out to maximize control.

I don't break the law to be an anarchist, I analyze the situation I am in and choose what I will do based on my judgement. "the law" (ESPECIALLY traffic laws) seems to assume that I have criminal intent and am stupid; since I don't, and I'm not; I do what I want when it won't affect others negatively (and ESPECIALLY when it will benefit others).

Re-reading my post in light of yours, I agree... it seems centered on breaking the law or rules; but that's not what its about. I am making decisions based on my own judgement of what is best for the situation; in the US this quite often seems to cause one to "break the law" but that is NOT the goal, good clarification!

Posted by Milneman (here)
I see light at the end of the tunnel here Pan, but I think when I come out at the other end it's not anarchy that I'm looking at. It's personal responsibility, ownership of self, and responsible behavior in a community.

in my mind, you just described anarchy, though I'd add in volunteerism.

[panopticon]

Posted by GalaxyHorse (here)
The central 'problem' for Anarchy, which is nicely articulated here in glowingly social theoretical terminology (it would make a university sociologist purr)
is that it demands a certain level of sophistication, development, agreed upon definitions, tacit boundaries-the same problems that beset all social assemblies...like
people who enjoy control, imposing their will on individuals less able to physically defend themselves, stealth-mode psychopaths who manipulate folks of good will for their own ends.....
I believe in the underlying objectives of Anarchy, the pursuit of freedom (happiness if you like), the removal of vertical structures of central power-but I have little faith in the current development of people
to be able to sustain Anarchy authentically.

I agree with you Galaxyhorse. Did the thread really make you purr?

It's why I would advocate a gradual transition approach. In that way the major problems you mention like psychopaths/manipulators and physical domination would already have played themselves out within that group and lessons learnt for future reference.

The other questions I would ask are:

• If not now then when?
• If not us then who?
• Should we never try to change the way the system attempts to controls us?
• Never challenge the authority that others claim over us?

We could wait the rest of our lives for others to be ready and then our children and their children could do the same.

Only through an active program of educated and understanding of how the system works can that time come into being.

This is what anarchists call consciousness raising.

What I must admit, and this isn't directed at Galaxyhorse, is I find it strange that there is a lack of faith in people mentioned in this thread. It's a recurring theme that seems to move between authors on this thread. "Oh, I agree with the principle but people aren't ready for it" or something similar.

I find that very odd, if not unsettling.

-- Pan

[TargeT]

Posted by panopticon (here)
I find it strange that there is a lack of faith in people mentioned in this thread. It's a recurring theme that seems to move between authors on this thread. "Oh, I agree with the principle but people aren't ready for it" or something similar.

I find that very odd, if not unsettling.

-- Pan

I believe that is a part of the "divide and conquer" technique used to keep people predictable and controllable. As I eluded to earlier in the thread most laws are written to make us think that the majority (if not all) of people have negative intent and are stupid, thus "the state" must protect you from them, and you from your self.

I think this lack of faith in the fellow man is an important aspect of why we are, at least in the "western" countries, as we are as a society (and it's hard to think that it's not intentional).

the funny thing to me is this: we don't need riots, protests, "occupy"; we need no social movements at all really... we just need to DO it, we may need an education campaign or two to get everyone on the same page, we definitely need to be un-indoctrinated (even those of us participating on this forum). This change could happen very quickly, I think the gradual approach will cause a lot of issues for the first 99 monkeys, but once the barrier is breached its amazing how quickly acceptance follows.

[christian]

Posted by panopticon (here)
My view of implementation revolves around decentralised "communities" [. . .]

I see! I like what you describe. If I were to categorize it, I'd say this is one way to organize a "community." The guys I quoted were looking more at how to organize it all on a massive scale. Of course, they don't address too much of the transition process. In that process, communities that experiment with different models such as the ones that you describe pave the way, I think. In reality, you'd always have communities with different practices.

Posted by panopticon (here)
There are heaps of ways for anyone to research Anarchism if they're interested.

[. . .]

Anyone got any more?

http://mises.org/

Although they often call it Libertarianism or the Austrian School of Economics.

Posted by TargeT (here)
I think the few family's that were broken up by anarchy inspired ideas probably had fundamental issues present already... [. . .] So, as a parent, it's hard for me not to see a lot of truth in Stefan's statements.

They most probably had issues before. But it's not only anarchist ideas cause families to break up. I'm particularly concerned with Stefan's eagerness to suggest to young people to just leave their families for good. No communication, no nothing. There was a very good article about Stefan's efforts in that regard recently, unfortunately in German. It cites many examples of that behavior from Stefan and his wife, who is a psychotherapist. She has been officially reprimanded in many cases because she had given people the advice to shun their families in Stefan's radio show.

Maybe check out But *my* parents were really nice! or Escaping Your Family Step By Step from Stefan's show.

There he says stuff like, "There is no capacity for people to act rightly in the modern world and that’s why I know that parents are bad." Or, "Please send me a donation... it will make it a lot easier for you to confront your parents if you're acting with good integrity in your life in general." There are more quotes in the article of which I cannot find the English source right now, but here we go, this is re-translated from German:

• They abused you by forcing you to behave in public.
• They cared so little for you, they didn't even bother beating you.
• People wanna tell you to repair your relationship to your parents, but this is impossible, a complete waste of time that's gonna drive you crazy. Because they hurt you when you were young, you cannot repair this relationship.

Or check out this snippet:

Caller: "Sometimes my dad shouted at our cat Fluffy when he was angry."

Molyneux: "I'm so sorry you had to experience this. What a monstrous, foul beast from the depths of hell. Your childhood must have been devastating. Tell me, did he ever shout at the cat in public?"

Caller: "Uh, no."

Molyneux: "I knew it! That proves he is not insane! He truly is a hateful, satanic demon who commits these unspeakable acts on purpose. I'm not telling you to defoo [leave your family of origin], but you'd be a complete loser if you didn't."

There are many quotes, articles, and videos that show that Stefan comes up with a lot of useful and inspiring ideas. But his advice in regard to family life is not that well thought out, in my opinion, it's just way too extreme.

[TargeT]

Posted by christian (here)


http://mises.org/

Although they often call it Libertarianism or the Austrian School of Economics.

To me it seems that libertarian-ism and Anarchists are nearly the same thing, in fact I can't think of an area where the two disagree.

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
I think the few family's that were broken up by anarchy inspired ideas probably had fundamental issues present already... [. . .] So, as a parent, it's hard for me not to see a lot of truth in Stefan's statements.

They most probably had issues before. But it's not only anarchist ideas cause families to break up. I'm particularly concerned with Stefan's eagerness to suggest to young people to just leave their families for good. No communication, no nothing. There was a very good article about Stefan's efforts in that regard recently, unfortunately in German. It cites many examples of that behavior from Stefan and his wife, who is a psychotherapist. She has been officially reprimanded in many cases because she had given people the advice to shun their families in Stefan's radio show.

Maybe check out But *my* parents were really nice! or Escaping Your Family Step By Step from Stefan's show.

There he says stuff like, "There is no capacity for people to act rightly in the modern world and that’s why I know that parents are bad." Or, "Please send me a donation... it will make it a lot easier for you to confront your parents if you're acting with good integrity in your life in general." There are more quotes in the article of which I cannot find the English source right now, but here we go, this is re-translated from German:

• They abused you by forcing you to behave in public.
• They cared so little for you, they didn't even bother beating you.
• People wanna tell you to repair your relationship to your parents, but this is impossible, a complete waste of time that's gonna drive you crazy. Because they hurt you when you were young, you cannot repair this relationship.

Or check out this snippet:

Caller: "Sometimes my dad shouted at our cat Fluffy when he was angry."

Molyneux: "I'm so sorry you had to experience this. What a monstrous, foul beast from the depths of hell. Your childhood must have been devastating. Tell me, did he ever shout at the cat in public?"

Caller: "Uh, no."

Molyneux: "I knew it! That proves he is not insane! He truly is a hateful, satanic demon who commits these unspeakable acts on purpose. I'm not telling you to defoo [leave your family of origin], but you'd be a complete loser if you didn't."

There are many quotes, articles, and videos that show that Stefan comes up with a lot of useful and inspiring ideas. But his advice in regard to family life is not that well thought out, in my opinion, it's just way too extreme.

interesting, I guess I've only cherry picked information from Stefan, I've never heard any of this before after years of randomly watching a video or two from him; I guess the old saying holds true here:

Everything in moderation

I think we are on the verge of needing another thread, I can think of a few counters that are irrelevant to the topic at hand here (mostly centered on my views of parents/parenting).

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by christian (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
we are off a bit on a tangent

Indeed. But you're really contradicting yourself. You say:

we have a legal entity allowed called a "corporation" that is the problem. How did this problem get created? [. . .] not by people.

Then you go on to say:

People now create corporations

I could also go at it from another angle, and quote this:

How did this problem get created? By another soul-less structure called a "government"

Then I'd ask you: How did governments get created, by whom?


-------


People creating institutions, corporations, or organizations virtually cannot be abolished. To abolish that, you would need either an institution or everybody on the planet would have to work towards this of their own accord.

It's not necessary at all to get rid of the idea of shared responsibility, as we have it when you sue a corporation. I think it's reasonable to have both, shared and individual responsibility. At the moment, obviously many criminal individuals at the top of many corporations are not being held accountable. There are many reasons for that, but it all boils down to the fact that we, the people, allow all this. We can stop it, if we want. To stop the atrocities that are going on, there is simply no need to abolish corporations in general. But if we would abolish corporations in general, this would not automatically solve our problems.

I didn't clarify where I was talking about the creation of the concept of corporation, vs people setting up a corporation for use -- two separate things.

My entire point had nothing to do with whether or not people are behind these things - of course they are, my point is that a person driving a nearly impenetrable and nearly indestructible vehicle my be inclined to drive it far differently then a vehicle that is fully transparent and the operators can be held responsible, likewise a person hiding behind the mask of the corporation will make different decisions than he would for himself where he would have full accountability -- this in a sense creates two very different decision making motivations. My final point was that you have to draw a distinctions between people operating under protection of a corporation or other such entity, and those not - because their motivations for making decisions become not their own, but rather for the entity itself.

Certain situations cause people to act outside of moral decision making, not having retribution for action is one of them. In Anarchy, everyone is fully responsible for his actions.