Do you agree?

Nearly every debate within political philosophy focuses on dialectic, dichotomous arguments. Most individuals fall under the fraud of the current civilisational paradigm, encouraged to ‘agree’ with one side or the other, on a given (usually meaningless) proposal. The sum total of these fraudulent choices forms the basis for each of these individual’s irrationality and neuroses.

In one of the more heated current debates – that on FREEDOM – ‘liberty-lovers’ from a wide range of backgrounds are being funnelled into opposing camps on dialectic arguments that in no way lead to freedom in reality, because these false choices are not based on the concept of freedom at all.

Minarchism vs. anarchism is just one of the arguments that most of you out there have likely encountered, and perhaps examined in some detail; you may even have taken a side.

Here’s another idea for you: try to look past the binary choice of the dialectic and, if you’re gonna examine anything, examine the principles involved from a truly rational and egoistic perspective (if you’re not sure what this means, then please research it – basically it means that each person ought to be concerned first and foremost with their own freedom).

Minarchism is basically the argument that people should be free from coercion when it comes to economic and ‘social’ choices (like drugs or sex), but that a ‘state’ is required to enforce ‘objective law’. People cannot be allowed to have a free choice on laws (the terms of their social relations), minarchism argues, because if there was choice, there would be no objective law, and therefore no objective morality upheld (in this regard, the political prescriptions of Objectivism can be considered a form of minarchism). So it is a SYSTEM by which people who don’t agree with each other ethically follow a third-party morality (which has to be proposed and enforced by individuals) in order to attempt to protect ‘individual rights’ (see “Do you have the right?”).

Anarchism makes the argument that people should have free choice on everything, including the enforcement of ‘laws’, although various anarchists treat the concept very differently depending on who you ask. Most anarchists tend towards the consequentialist side of the argument, and therefore ignore morality altogether. The overwhelming majority of ‘anarchists’ appear to be supportive of individual freedom only on paper, and are actually closet (or open) collectivists in practice. Their only concern, caught in the dialectic, as they are, is that there be no monopoly over the means of violence. Anarchists want a scenario whereby people who don’t agree on their ethics can live alongside or together with one another, without anyone enforcing a third-party morality on anyone else. Quite how they will bring this scenario about varies from theorist to theorist, and so does the degree to which these models are self-contradictory or ridiculous.

Another branch of thought is becoming quite popular – one that calls itself voluntarism, and is basically the view that all activities should be voluntary as opposed to coercive. While this view comes closest to a truly rational view, in practice most ‘voluntarists’ support the utilitarian view of ethics espoused by the anarchists, and join them in trying to design a model of social organisation that allows people who disagree to live with one another.

Here’s my take on all of this:

1. Why do people who don’t agree with each other want to live together in the first place? Most of the groupings in which people find their selves are artificial and have been forced upon them by elites. Original identifications found in band societies and tribal societies have been largely eroded, and in any case are dependent on acceptance by the individual. When incompatible groupings overlap, social relations become impossible. Why would I, knowing that religions are methods for engendering control and mental illness, want to live next door to people who indoctrinate their children? To me, thinking and acting in one’s rational self-interest means I want to be as far away from such people as possible. Why would I want to live under a system that simultaneously protects their ‘freedom of religion’ and yet prosecutes anyone trying to rescue the children? (as in the US constitution) Or a system that perports to be REASONABLE yet would oblige the ‘machinery of the state’ to ‘forcefully rescue’ children from their families, to a place and guardianship unknown? (Objectivism)

2. Why do all of these questions and arguments centre around these things that do not exist called ‘rights’? Some people say rights come from ‘god’, others that they come from ‘nature’, others that they are ‘self-evident’, or others that they ‘just are’ (the Objectivist view, btw). None of these arguments really deals with the fact that they are talking about concepts, and as such, merely thoughts. If it all comes down to thought, as I agree it does, why can’t this be solved at the level of thought? Why the need for ‘governments’ (read: criminal gangs) or ‘laws’ (read: enFORCEment of third-party moral systems) if what is rational can already be measured against what is irrational, and what is real can already be determined, by the power of thought?

If people were to organise themselves socially not by systems (designed to do X,Y,Z) but by the nature of their agreements, then reality would arbitrate as to what is rational and what is not. A consentient society – in which I, and like-minded people I agree with, live together – would, I imagine, flourish a lot more than a commune of ‘voluntary libertarian socialists’ who would quickly discover that their ideas were disastrously unworkable.

As for those who point-blank refuse to face their irrationality, especially living under systems designed to use force to enslave them and dumb them down: why would those (few) of you to whom this does not apply want to waste your life proselytising these people, just so maybe one day you can see the: death of the state/an Objectivist state/the constitution restored, or whatever your utopian dream is?

I’m not denouncing utopia. It can exist. Nobody believes that more than I do. But if your utopia is based on a scenario where no-one agrees on anything (which would not work) or ‘forcing the good’ (which relies on force), I seriously encourage you to rethink.

What do you think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s