The huge step is the presumption that other people cannot simply be allowed to freely make their own decisions, and everything beyond that is simply a matter of how little or how much compulsion should be employed to get them to “choose” as one prefers instead.
As for the bulk of you response, I can very simply explain my view.
My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.
And of course, I too should be seen to be entirely free to make my own choices, including responding to the choice you’ve made in whatever way I see fit.
If each and all, or close enough as makes no meaningful difference, choose generally rationally, then the society will succeed. If not, then it will fail. It really is just that simple.
If, for whatever reason, that freedom is not ceded to each and all by each and all (or, again, close enough as makes no meaningful difference), then the society will inevitably follow the path back to institutionalized, hierarchical authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter how many well-meaning people work to see it limited - institutionalized authority rewards and thus effectively selects for those who are least constrained by morals, ethics, principles and empathy, and thus most willing and able to do whatever it takes to gain, hold and expand authority and the privilege it inherently grants, and even the tiniest opening will provide them with an opportunity they can and will exploit.
And as for the last bit, I’d simply rather invest my finite time and attention into reasoning through ideas on my own than into consuming the reasoning of others, particularly when it’s the case, as it all too often is, that I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.
My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.
I literally cannot conjure up a better example for what kinds of mistakes you can internalize by doing a clean-room design of anarchism.
I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.
That’s magical thinking. Yeah there’s no such thing as a pure anarchist text and we are all shaped by the oppressions we are subject to, but the reasonable response is not to retreat into your own head, since you are certainly just as “tainted” as anyone else. Instead, the reasonable response is to read all textscritically, i.e. assume a perfect text does not exist.
And frankly, I don’t even want to read solely anarchist books. There are lots of people who make excellent contributions to various fields of endeavor who are not necessarily anarchists. E.g., I loved Omar El-Akkad’s book One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This on the Gaza genocide, and I recommend every anarchist read it even though El-Akkad is not an anarchist to the best of my knowledge. It’s up to us to approach literature with a critical assessment.
I literally cannot conjure up a better example for what kinds of mistakes you can internalize by doing a clean-room design of anarchism.
So in your estimation the correct position is… what? That there should be some mechanism by which people would be prohibited from making destructive choices? In anarchism?
You do understand that those are the only two options, right? Either you’re free to choose or you’re not, and if you’re not, it can only be because some third party has denied you that freedom. Since anarchism precludes the existence of any third party that would be empowered to nominally rightfully deny someone else any right, my statement, superficially controversial though it might appear, is really simple and straightforward and obviously true.
It’s just that it cuts to the heart of one of the most common mistakes self-proclaimed anarchists make - refusing to relinquish (or generally even examine) their bland presumption that other people’s decisions are rightly subject to their approval.
Which presumption is the basis for the institutionalization of authority, when those people learn that it’s not practical (or often even possible) for them to effectively prohibit choices of which they disapprove on their own, so instead of considering the possibility that that’s a nominal right that they should not in fact possess, they instead seek some method by which additional force might be applied.
Or is it just that you were confused by my statement? Did you think I was advocating a right to rape? If so, I suggest rereading it more carefully and thinking about it, because I very much was not.
No it’s really not.
The huge step is the presumption that other people cannot simply be allowed to freely make their own decisions, and everything beyond that is simply a matter of how little or how much compulsion should be employed to get them to “choose” as one prefers instead.
As for the bulk of you response, I can very simply explain my view.
My position is that you should be seen to be entirely free to make your own choices, even if the choice you make is to rape me.
And of course, I too should be seen to be entirely free to make my own choices, including responding to the choice you’ve made in whatever way I see fit.
If each and all, or close enough as makes no meaningful difference, choose generally rationally, then the society will succeed. If not, then it will fail. It really is just that simple.
If, for whatever reason, that freedom is not ceded to each and all by each and all (or, again, close enough as makes no meaningful difference), then the society will inevitably follow the path back to institutionalized, hierarchical authoritarianism. It doesn’t matter how many well-meaning people work to see it limited - institutionalized authority rewards and thus effectively selects for those who are least constrained by morals, ethics, principles and empathy, and thus most willing and able to do whatever it takes to gain, hold and expand authority and the privilege it inherently grants, and even the tiniest opening will provide them with an opportunity they can and will exploit.
And as for the last bit, I’d simply rather invest my finite time and attention into reasoning through ideas on my own than into consuming the reasoning of others, particularly when it’s the case, as it all too often is, that I end up discovering that their reasoning has been tainted by their own authoritarian habits, presumptions or even ambitions.
Thanks for the response.
I literally cannot conjure up a better example for what kinds of mistakes you can internalize by doing a clean-room design of anarchism.
That’s magical thinking. Yeah there’s no such thing as a pure anarchist text and we are all shaped by the oppressions we are subject to, but the reasonable response is not to retreat into your own head, since you are certainly just as “tainted” as anyone else. Instead, the reasonable response is to read all texts critically, i.e. assume a perfect text does not exist.
And frankly, I don’t even want to read solely anarchist books. There are lots of people who make excellent contributions to various fields of endeavor who are not necessarily anarchists. E.g., I loved Omar El-Akkad’s book One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This on the Gaza genocide, and I recommend every anarchist read it even though El-Akkad is not an anarchist to the best of my knowledge. It’s up to us to approach literature with a critical assessment.
So in your estimation the correct position is… what? That there should be some mechanism by which people would be prohibited from making destructive choices? In anarchism?
You do understand that those are the only two options, right? Either you’re free to choose or you’re not, and if you’re not, it can only be because some third party has denied you that freedom. Since anarchism precludes the existence of any third party that would be empowered to nominally rightfully deny someone else any right, my statement, superficially controversial though it might appear, is really simple and straightforward and obviously true.
It’s just that it cuts to the heart of one of the most common mistakes self-proclaimed anarchists make - refusing to relinquish (or generally even examine) their bland presumption that other people’s decisions are rightly subject to their approval.
Which presumption is the basis for the institutionalization of authority, when those people learn that it’s not practical (or often even possible) for them to effectively prohibit choices of which they disapprove on their own, so instead of considering the possibility that that’s a nominal right that they should not in fact possess, they instead seek some method by which additional force might be applied.
Or is it just that you were confused by my statement? Did you think I was advocating a right to rape? If so, I suggest rereading it more carefully and thinking about it, because I very much was not.