Interestingly enough the word "faith" is used against me in terms of my being an anarchist. A couple of days ago my sister told me that my being an anarchist is unrealistic because I have too much "faith" in humanity. And of course I replied with the inverse is true, because I don't have faith in humanity is why I'm an anarchist. It's her faith in politicians to act benevolently that is unrealistic.
No. It doesn't require faith. Anarchy is simply taking humans for what they are. You cannot rule or legislate values and morals. There is no faith required. Let each man walk down his own path, requires zero faith.
And if that path leads back to statism, then anarchy supports statism, because perhaps that is part of what humans are, regardless of whether or not you prefer it to be that way.
I prefer to think that humans can do better than recreate a statist society, however i recognize that that opinion is tenuous and not really supported by any evidence.
The evidence is all around you; statism is a religion which requires an unbelievable amount of faith in others to be more efficient at managing your affairs. But who takes care of YOU? You feed yourself, you clothe yourself, you are the ultimate overseer of your own well-being. No faith required.
There is no evidence that humans would act in any specific way in an anarchist society. You said so in your previous comment. Further, the fact that statism relies on faith doesn't change the fact that our opinions on humanity aren't based on faith. Nor does it mean that it is wrong to recognize that.
Do you think that humanity has had governments all along? No. There is tons of historical evidence and humanity lived through the "trial" of anarchy only to submit to tyrants. It doesn't follow that man is destined to submit. I don't see any faith here. I just don't. I have zero faith in humanity; my line of reasoning has brought me to the conclusion that statism doesn't work. I don't have opinions about humanity, I only have opinions about individuals.
You claim that "the evidence is all around us", which, I'm sorry to say, is not an irrefutable fact. Which suggests faith in the matter. Again, not a bad thing. I have faith that global warming isn't as huge of an issue as society wants me to believe, but it very well could be.
Do you not take care of yourself w/o a ruler? Does a ruler brush your teeth for you in the morning? Do you not ensure that you have a place to sleep at night? So you have full confidence and trust that global warming isn't a huge issue? Ok.
Huh? Again, what is with this defensive stance on anarchy? All I've tried to do is point out faith in action. I have not once mentioned that anarchy isn't a rational personal philosophy.
"You claim that "the evidence is all around us", which, I'm sorry to say, is not an irrefutable fact." Kevin you are questioning the validity of anarchy, why are you playing this game? lol
No, I am saying that the evidence "around you" has nothing to do with your ability to trust yourself. I am not questioning anarchy as a personal philosophy here.
And anarchy is a philosophy, as it is not a chaotic system of control like statism. If anarchy resorted back to statism, all that would prove is that the philosophy of humanity chose to return to the statist religion of submission. That does not disprove anarchy.
Who tried to disprove anarchy? Why so defensive? All I am saying is that an element of faith (trust and confidence) exists in your philosophy when projected outwards beyond the personal side of it.
I'm not being defensive. But your statements suggest that you are trying to disprove anarchy Kevin. I think that your use of the word faith just doesn't coincide with my internal dictionary lol. If what you mean is trust and confidence, then that is what maybe you should use? I don't trust humanity though and I only have full confidence in myself, which is why I prefer anarchy.
My statements suggest no such thing. Pointing out that a stance on anarchy has an element of faith does not disprove it in anyway. I was commenting on your post regarding your sisters comment, and agreed with her on it.
And I still don't agree with the way you're using faith "full confidence and trust" as I explained that is not needed either. And she was using faith in regards to the other definition. So you actually don't agree with her.
Actually, it seems that depending upon how one defines redutionism, that can also be compatable with holism....
... at least from what I get by reading the wikipedia articles....
blackacidlizzard 2 years ago
Interestingly enough the word "faith" is used against me in terms of my being an anarchist. A couple of days ago my sister told me that my being an anarchist is unrealistic because I have too much "faith" in humanity. And of course I replied with the inverse is true, because I don't have faith in humanity is why I'm an anarchist. It's her faith in politicians to act benevolently that is unrealistic.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
But it is your faith in humanity to do better than the politicians that lends you confidence in your belief.
Does that disturb you? Why should it?
fungku777 2 years ago
No. It doesn't require faith. Anarchy is simply taking humans for what they are. You cannot rule or legislate values and morals. There is no faith required. Let each man walk down his own path, requires zero faith.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
And if that path leads back to statism, then anarchy supports statism, because perhaps that is part of what humans are, regardless of whether or not you prefer it to be that way.
I prefer to think that humans can do better than recreate a statist society, however i recognize that that opinion is tenuous and not really supported by any evidence.
fungku777 2 years ago
The evidence is all around you; statism is a religion which requires an unbelievable amount of faith in others to be more efficient at managing your affairs. But who takes care of YOU? You feed yourself, you clothe yourself, you are the ultimate overseer of your own well-being. No faith required.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
There is no evidence that humans would act in any specific way in an anarchist society. You said so in your previous comment. Further, the fact that statism relies on faith doesn't change the fact that our opinions on humanity aren't based on faith. Nor does it mean that it is wrong to recognize that.
fungku777 2 years ago
Do you think that humanity has had governments all along? No. There is tons of historical evidence and humanity lived through the "trial" of anarchy only to submit to tyrants. It doesn't follow that man is destined to submit. I don't see any faith here. I just don't. I have zero faith in humanity; my line of reasoning has brought me to the conclusion that statism doesn't work. I don't have opinions about humanity, I only have opinions about individuals.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
I never posited that anarchy would turn back to statism, only that if it did, your belief in anarchy would be brought into question.
fungku777 2 years ago
Choosing a ruler or not choosing a ruler. I don't see how my belief would be brought into question.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
You claim that "the evidence is all around us", which, I'm sorry to say, is not an irrefutable fact. Which suggests faith in the matter. Again, not a bad thing. I have faith that global warming isn't as huge of an issue as society wants me to believe, but it very well could be.
fungku777 2 years ago
Do you not take care of yourself w/o a ruler? Does a ruler brush your teeth for you in the morning? Do you not ensure that you have a place to sleep at night? So you have full confidence and trust that global warming isn't a huge issue? Ok.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
Huh? Again, what is with this defensive stance on anarchy? All I've tried to do is point out faith in action. I have not once mentioned that anarchy isn't a rational personal philosophy.
fungku777 2 years ago
"You claim that "the evidence is all around us", which, I'm sorry to say, is not an irrefutable fact." Kevin you are questioning the validity of anarchy, why are you playing this game? lol
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
No, I am saying that the evidence "around you" has nothing to do with your ability to trust yourself. I am not questioning anarchy as a personal philosophy here.
fungku777 2 years ago
I think it does. The evidence around me directly affects my ability to trust myself, because then I would be trusting myself based upon faith.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
And anarchy is a philosophy, as it is not a chaotic system of control like statism. If anarchy resorted back to statism, all that would prove is that the philosophy of humanity chose to return to the statist religion of submission. That does not disprove anarchy.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
Who tried to disprove anarchy? Why so defensive? All I am saying is that an element of faith (trust and confidence) exists in your philosophy when projected outwards beyond the personal side of it.
fungku777 2 years ago
I'm not being defensive. But your statements suggest that you are trying to disprove anarchy Kevin. I think that your use of the word faith just doesn't coincide with my internal dictionary lol. If what you mean is trust and confidence, then that is what maybe you should use? I don't trust humanity though and I only have full confidence in myself, which is why I prefer anarchy.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
My statements suggest no such thing. Pointing out that a stance on anarchy has an element of faith does not disprove it in anyway. I was commenting on your post regarding your sisters comment, and agreed with her on it.
fungku777 2 years ago
And I still don't agree with the way you're using faith "full confidence and trust" as I explained that is not needed either. And she was using faith in regards to the other definition. So you actually don't agree with her.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
"I don't trust humanity though and I only have full confidence in myself, which is why I prefer anarchy."
Same here, well said.
crazypants88 2 years ago
Which is a round about way of saying you have faith in yourself. :-)
fungku777 2 years ago
No I have full confidence in myself. I don't use that word.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago
Good video. I choose not to use that word simply because of how loaded it is.
Freemarketeer81 2 years ago