I find ignorance to be the main cause and the essence of suffering.
I would like to know why you think that what you think is correct. If you ever have any doubts and question ideas, or you don't because Bakunin or other authority said it was good. Can I choose to not recognize this authority as beneficial for me when almost every economist, philosopher, sociologist and all the evidence humanity has, contradicts with this view?
Is an idea that cannot withstand simple scrutiny, questions of logic worth upholding? Wouldn't this be ignorance, proven to be dangerous to human life, every time it is tried?
As a free individual, a Voluntaryist, I love the humanity and I am worried about the ideas that have constantly been proven to be detrimental to our lives or progress.
If an idea is causing suffering, resulting in increased number of deaths and suffering, I question it.
If I find enough evidence to support it, I oppose this hurtful ideology, as a part of my moral duty.
What I personally want, is a voluntary society where each individual can decide what is more beneficial for them.
Even the worst deal ever, can be either accepted or refused.
Why do you think, that when you create a society based on the principle of violent theft of someone's property, you should expect anything else, but lack of respect for individual freedom, violence and theft?
If your basic principle of coexisting with other individuals, is the initiation of violence to impose compelled speech, or to take what is not yours, because of hypothetical notion, that if you will not do it, someone will be as bad as you and do it to you, why do you think you are an anarchist?
I just want to understand how things work and write about it.
I would like to have a civilized debate. I am not interested in insulting anyone and ask you to do the same.
If you wish to convince anyone to the ideology of communism, please start with me, as I like to write and I will write about your ideology, helping your ideology to spread.
if I ma convinced it is better for humanity.
The goal of ultimate personal freedom in capitalism is a voluntary society, where the property of each individual is respected.
My belief is the more you force people to do what you want them to do is slavery, to higher or lower degree and it is causing people to be less productive.
We can see the examples of consequences. For example communists created a law, that no farmer in Ukraine can keep their crop, because it is needed for the well-being of everyone. It was enforced with threat of death. Every farmer that hid a little for his family was killed.
6 000 000 farmers and people depending on their crop starved to death.
The end goal of socialism is communism, which communists in this group call anarchy.
Capitalism, while oppressed by the state that imposes fasco-socialism on fee market, from 2004 to 2012 cut the wordl's poverty level in half. 8 years of oppressed capitalism made almost 3,7 billion people get out of poverty.
Communism killed min. 200 million people. Collectivism killed probably around 300 million in last 100 years.
Socialism in theory is about fairness in being rewarded well for your labour, right? Would keeping all the money for the labour mean owning the means of production? Why when a capitalist wants to keep the money for the labour and decide what to do with it, it is bad according to socialists? Because there is no state deciding how much who deserves? Isn't this an Orwellian nightmare?
In capitalism the market, which is just people, decides how much I get paid.
Who decides in Socialism?
Why be a delusional ultra-statist and pretend an anarchists? What is the difference in AnCom? Who are the people who decide how much I get paid and how will they decide and how will it impose on everyone?
Please explain to me why communism you call anarchy is better.
So communism needs socialism to exist. If everything would go the way the theory says, it would end in communism, or what AnComs call “anarchy”.
To get where AnCom wants, you need the totalitarian power of the state.
Property existed ever since the oxygen atom claimed 2 hydrogens as its “property”. A dog has a bone. It is his bone. A monkey has a banana, because it got it.
If I go in the forest and make something that did not exist, investing my who life, which is my capital. I risk, I suffer, I use my skills and I create something that wasn't, like a house.
Is this house mine?
If the ground is not, can you come and make a toilet in my living room, because the ground is also yours?
Why wouldn't this create more confusion, aggression and suffering?
|If you claim to be an anarchist, because you base your ideology on the principle, that you can use force to take from others what is not your, which is the definition of imposing your authority to rule, because you think others may be as bad as you and impose their authority and take your stuff... why do you think you are not imposing your authority?
So because you need a totalitarian state to achieve communism (AnCom), is the violence of the state the necessary means to achieve the utopia?
Is this what you want, to take things that you did not make from the bourgeois?
Why claim you do not need capitalists, when you need to take their stuff to build your society?
Why not just gather up people and share what you created, your wealth?
It is not like we produce only one thing and people who do it now stop you from producing whatever you like.
Humans keep inventing and producing new things all the time. Why would you need the people, you claim you do not need?
The ones who reduced poverty by half in 8 years... you want to rob them as punishment, because you think you deserve as much as them?
Why not be successful instead of violently rob the successful?
Why the belief in total power of the state is not ultra-statism?
How do you explain this, in order to stay within the term “Anarchy”?
What are the means
If you are not aware of these statistic facts, should you be? If you are aware of this evidence, do you choose to be ignorant to stay in your comfort zone of flawed ideology?
This takes us back to the presupposition, that ignorance is the source of all evil.
Why do you choose to be evil and call yourself an Anarchist and give bad name to everyone who does not believe in aggression of imposed authority? What excuse would you find to initiate violence other than defending from violent aggression.
What are your reasons for initiation of violent aggression? Why do you think it is anarchy?
Straight from the horse's mouth:
I believe that every interaction between humans should be voluntary. I want for each individual to be the only controller of their lives and their property. I am an anarchist, a capitalist, a voluntaryist, but most of all, I am an individual, who does not recognize your value by the status you achieved in an imposed, imaginary collective. No matter who you are; if you respect others, respect me, I will always respect you.
PEACE AND LOVE IN ANARCHY
If you are interested in off-grid living, homesteading, medicinal plants and alternative lifestyle, check out my other blogs @lostambores and @smokeymcpot
"The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals — a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men — which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state) — a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.
From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other."
Leonard Peikoff, The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1
I'm myself an Anarcho-capitalist, but I have one doubt:
What if at least one of private defence agencies (for example - agency A) - which are an essential element of the Anarcho-capitalist concept - after aquiring right amount customers - by strictly voluntary/free market actions (by serving better services for lower cost) - would:
Those actions will probably result in:
But what if ... the "A" agency will be able to overcome all of the above obstacles?