For me, the road to becoming an anarchist had many turns and twists. I started out what people refer to now as a moderate. Moderate meaning someone who takes on conservative ideas on some issues, liberal ideas on others. I was more conservative on foreign policy issues and liberal on domestic policy issues. In other words, while I thought of myself as a moderate, and was called a moderate, I was a full blown statist. So as you can imagine, becoming an anarchist is not something that happened over night. Since I discovered the ideas of liberty I have sought a way to describe my experience in simple terms, but that proved more difficult than I imagined it would be, despite the simplicity of some of the ideas (i.e. freedom means the absence of force; the state is the monopoly of force). However, I think I have found a suitable analogy.
Imagine you are poor and you stumble upon a job that requires you to wear dress shoes. Someone lends you enough money to buy whatever dress shoes you think are necessary and you begin to shop. Out of nowhere you spot the perfect pair of shoes. As you approach these shoes, you become more and more humbled by their appearance. You decide to hold them and begin to think: these shoes will be perfect for my new job. Absolutely perfect. But before you give them the automatic A, you begin to question the idea of perfection. Surely we have all heard the expression "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is." You begin to wonder if these shoes will last long, or fit right, or match your clothes in just the right way, etc. This point is crucial because it defines the point and basis on which you will make your decisions. There are some people who put the shoes back just because they seem a little too good (too good to be true), but others will try the shoes on. At first the shoes seem constricting. It may even hurt different places of your foot at first, or it may fit perfectly right off the bat. After walking in the shoes for a while, you realize that the shoe begins to conform to the shape of the foot. Your found the perfect looking shoe, tried it on, and now it is changing for comfort as well.
This has been my experience dealing with becoming an anarchist. The idea of non-aggression sounds really good, but would it actually work? Would things such as road building get done? But ultimately I took the plunge because the non-aggression principle is not about building roads or schooling children, it is about how we treat our fellow human beings. I simply could not accept the idea of legitimized aggression simply to have roads or to have schools... especially since so many other services don't require aggression.
Now that I have gotten over that barrier (the idea that it must not be too good to be true since it seems that way; it meaning the rejection of legitimized force) and have worn the shoe for a little while, I have found that it is easier to describe the ideas and think them through. The term "anarchist" is not a term that any longer sounds extreme or negative in any way.
Be that as it may, there still are some parties that I do not come right out and tell I am an anarchist the first time I meet them. Co-workers who are retired-detectives and current military members can be tricky, since teamwork and trust are so important. But that is to be expected in such a statist world. But all-in-all I am proud of my new shoes and anxious to show them off, even to my co-workers :)
Showing posts with label Anxiety Relief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anxiety Relief. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)