You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Are You Confused by the Word "Anarchy"?

in #anarchylast year (edited)
In political philosophy, there is a theory called `social contract` which clearly explains why total anarchism will never function as a basis for human advancement.
Sort:  

Are you forgetting that we are "educated" to be dependent on "Big Brother", aka, the Industrial/Military Complex, aka, the "System"? (systema=sewer) That is why your aforementioned "social contract" theory seems to hold water. Imagine if we weren't educated by authorities who want ignorant, retard slaves who are woefully dependent on "dad" for everything? That is why our "education" system must be the first thing to go. School actually prevented me from learning. I regret everyday of it and wish I had dropped out in the 4th Grade like Jacque Fresco, who is easily one of the top 5 smartest humans ever.

"authorities who want ignorant" this is true. Here is a bonus for you if you love George Carlin.

legend

Thanks, George Carlin was most certainly "woke" to the current human condition. Though, sometimes I am not sure if he was awake because he was smart, or "awake" because he is "one of them" and he was merely fulfilling his role for his powerful brotherhood. If you don't know what I mean, there was a good reason the Court Jesters of old could say whatever they wanted about the Crown but, peasantry could not. ;) Much love all around!!!

I've never understood why people think social contract theory makes any sense. It's not a contract at all so the very name is misleading. From wikipedia:

According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

The belief in authority is a myth.

I think the answer to your question is quite simple, Hans Morgenthau describes it as “the animus dominandi, a lust for power without limits that exists universally as an inner force, an element of the human soul”. John Mearsheimer tried to explain why there are conflicts in international relations by focusing on the structure/architecture (Structural Realism) of it, that there is no higher power that can police the world (theoretically speaking), hence all countries are in a constant fear that other countries may attack them at any given time (The main reason why the League of Nations was a failure). I think Thomas Hobbes describes it very well when he speaks about the stats of nature, and I quote:

Hobbes argued that natural inequalities between humans are not so great as to give anyone clear superiority; and thus all must live in constant fear of loss or violence; so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state, every person has a natural right to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Within the state of nature, there is neither personal property nor injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it"; and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" . From here, Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into political society and government by mutual contracts.   I invite to watch this video of John Mearsheimer speaking about Realism and anarchic system.  

The Peace of Westphalia and all the wars that lead to it is one of the great examples why the social contract is an important thing since people must learn to cohabit (different religions, different needs ...), and cohabitation can't happen if there are no contracts between people to sustain peace and safety.

The Peace of Westphalia established the precedent of peace established by diplomatic congress. A new system of political order arose in central Europe, based upon peaceful coexistence among sovereign states. Inter-state aggression was to be held in check by a balance of power, and a norm was established against interference in another state's domestic affairs. As European influence spread across the globe, these Westphalian principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and to the prevailing world order.

I think that nor total anarchism or control is something to be proud of. But if I had to choose, I will probably choose the social contract approach. Because at least, people will have the power (theoretically) to alter the nature of the contract by voting on the ideas they deem favorable for them or even make the system they are living under less authoritarian. Anarchic systems open doors to the "state of nature" Hobbes and Hans spoke about, which will eventually lead to a primitive form of conflicts that will naturally arise because of human nature.

I invite you to watch this video of John Mearsheimer speaking about Realism and anarchic systems. He explains the concept better than me.

At the end of the day, I feel it’s more like choosing the lesser of two evils. Far from being a belief.

Social contract is meaningless and up to the dictates of authorities if you cant govern and choose yourself.

I see a couple assumptions here:

cohabitation can't happen if there are no contracts between people to sustain peace and safety.

Depending on where people are on Maslow's Hierarchy, I think they can live together. I do agree that contracts actually help people do that better. I do not think the social "contract" is a contract, for the reasons I outlined above. I prefer actual, voluntary contracts.

that will naturally arise because of human nature.

This is a big assumption I see often. People take their personal experience of the dataset they prefer and project it into something vague and collective known as "human nature." What if I perceive human nature as wanting to meet the needs of others as NVC describes? What if humans are actually good to each other and only a select few (who we keep giving authoritarian power to) want to harm others?

All that said, I did very much appreciate the video. Thanks for sharing. I think fear and other negative modes of emotional thinking drive a lot of this and as humans have less to fear from each other, these drives and concerns go away related to power and domination. Previous systems rewarded the powerful. There is no guarantee the systems of the future will do the same.