Ah, but you aren't doing enough for anarchism. I don't need to be an activist, thankfully, because we live under a government that I support and uphold. Other people before me have fought, died, and stood up for this good. So the burden is on YOU, the minority, to convince us that what we uphold is wrong. Furthermore, it is up to you to fight, die, and stand up for the system (or lack thereof) you believe in, and for people like me to stand against you in that fight. Otherwise, we're just bandying meaningless words.
death for a cause is irrational. why would i sacrifice myself if i will not reap the rewards? it makes no sense. i would rather die then be a slave, but there are some degrees of oppression i will accept rather then death. call it a judgement call, and it's
my judgement to make. not yours.
the burden is not on me to convince you of anything. if you refuse to be rational i cannot convince you. it's that simple. i refuse to argue from anything outside of reason, if you will not listen to reason then you will not listen to me.
if you don't want to discuss my philosophical beliefs with me, don't. somebody else will. i don't care if you think my beliefs are meaningless or not.
As for your objections to majority rule, I agree it has its flaws. Rule of the majority, however, is far better than no rule at all, where the force of the minority, in the forms of violent "gangs" or other groups, would quickly take hold in the power vacuum left by government. I would much rather have a say in my rule than none at all. I would rather pay a government for protection, laws, and order, than pay a gang to let me live under their arbitrary rules.
The government
is a gang you pay to let live under their arbitrary rules! how are they different? because you can
vote for one? come on! what happens, in your unrealistic portrayl of anarchy, when you don't pay the gang your protection money and refuse their further prosecution? they kill you. what happens if i refuse to pay my taxes and further refuse prosecution? they kill me.
no difference. none. if, in a society of 100 anarchists, 5 decided to form a violent gang and try to take over.. well, the other 95 would put an end to that. we don't appreciate people
fucking with our liberty - "don't tread on me"
you see, the thing you fail to realize is that anarchists don't think like you. they think like me. do you really believe that we would abolish/overthrow government and then turn around and let violent members among us rise up to become the new de facto government? the answer is no, we wouldn't.
the rule would not be rule of law, but rule of reason, logic and rationale.
I find it rather ironic that both of us are trusting to the good of human nature here while saying the other person is wrong to do so. In my view, I believe the majority of people will believe what is right and act on it in the formation of laws. Thus, I find your example of, if the majority believed in slavery, would that make it right, to be moot. The majority DOESN'T believe in slavery, and for good reason. If suddenly they did, that wouldn't make them morally right, it would just give them the power to enact laws based on their ideas. I would be outraged and act in accordance to change this as well as I could. It is my duty to my moral sense and to the people such a law would subjugate. However, that isn't reality, and there is no reason to believe it ever would be. I trust my fellow humans to be, for the most part, moral beings. The few wackos out there are luckily in the minority.
The majority today doesn't believe in slavery, but they have in the past and very well could again in the future. You are saying that today's majority is morally right because they believe slavery to be wrong, but another years majority was morally wrong when they believed slavery to be right - how do you make this distinction? based on what moral code have you arrived at this conclusion? obviously not "societies", as you expressed earlier. you must have some other reason for thinking racism is wrong other then the fact that the all-mighty majority believes it wrong - what is that reason?
you say you trust your fellow human beings to be moral - moral according to
whom? the majority? if not, then whom?
You also trust to human nature. You trust, and it is a noble trust, that humans have the capacity to rule themselves without succumbing to outside forces trying to take over (i.e. other countries) or inside forces looking for power (i.e. violent gangs). You trust that people could run a competent society with no agreed upon traffic rules, no safety nets for human rights, no public safety other than what a personal weapon might afford. In an anarchist society, you would trust your neighbors not to shoot you if you made too much noise at night, your boss not to fire you because he didn't like how you dressed, your wife not to poison you because she'd found someone better, your children not to kill you for the insurance money, and so on and so forth. We do this to some extent in governed societies as well, but in a society with no repercussions for doing wrong, wrong seems not so wrong, and then okay. Sure, not everyone would go around killing people just because they could, but some people would. And some would be enough. If all anyone has is their own moral sense guiding them, however poorly-formed this may be, do you really want to trust them with your life?
Trust? not me. trust is failable. I
know human beings have the capacity for reason and rational thought. I
know that some humans exercise this capacity and others do not. I
know that in a society where reason was the thing that decided if you lived or died, that the unreasonable would perish and the reasonable would thrive. it's got nothing to do with trust.
Where did you get the impression that there would be no reprecussion for wrong-doing? there are concequences to every action. if you rape somebody, you had best be prepared to face them. this is true in a governed society and would be true in a self-governed society.
if somebody broke into my home with the intent to rob me, i would likely blast him into oblivion and then go back to bed. concequences.
all the examples you use about my wife or kids trying to kill me, or my neighbors trying to kill me are just as plausible in todays demockracy. government does not stop murders. they only punish the murderers. and even then, it is not the omnipotent body called "government" that punishes the criminals, it is MEN acting as representatives of that body.
men. the same men that would populate the earth if there was no government at all.
What it comes down to is, in a governed society, the people place their trust and ultimately their lives in the hands of a group of people and ideals that they freely choose and elect. In an anarchistic society, everyone's lives and well-beings are in the hands of every other single person, because every other person has the power to do what they want - to themselves and to you. If they've got the bigger gun, the better aim, more money, a better gang affiliation, well, you are shit out of luck. I trust my fellow people in the majority, but I do not trust each and every one of them individually. That is the difference between me and you, and that is why I believe an anarchistic society would be oppressive. EVERYONE would have power over me, and I don't elect my fellow humans into existence.
Except that i have not chosen a government in my life. I have not elected anybody. I did not do so freely.
The power to elect the government is in the hands of every amerikan who chooses to vote. EVERYONE does have power over you. And what is government besides the biggest armed body with the most money and connections?
in a liberated world, nobody would have power over you.
THERE. WOULD. NOT. BE. A. GOVERNMENT. no laws, no rules, no taxation, no control AT ALL.
understand? no violent gang would rise up - it is impossible. the number of citizens who want to be free would outnumber those who want to take power. you say "how do you know?" and i say "how do you know i'm wrong?"
but i don't even want a liberated world. you followers of demockracy can have it. i just want a libertated YARD where i can live, free of your government.
