I'm not perfect, and despite what some might think, I've never believed I am. This life is a journey, and I am not "there" by any stretch of the imagination.
I've always been what could be called "anti-government", but I used to make certain exceptions for things like the environment or "justice". That was because of holes in my thinking processes. I have since patched those holes. You can't fix problems with initiated force or theft. Even if you have the illusion of the problem being fixed, worse problems will be caused.
As a consequence, I try to understand those who still think coercion can be right under some circumstances. It can be bewildering to watch the mental gymnastics used to excuse such things. I guess I was never so sold on the idea that I expended much effort in trying to defend it. I abandoned any support for the state quite easily. So, while I still think supporters of the state are wrong, I try to remember that at one time, I might have been nodding my head in agreement with them. I keep believing that, given time, the intelligent ones will come around.
........................................
Do you try to understand them Kent ? The complicated statist will continually refer to social contract theory, Rosseau's general will or even Rawl's veil of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can tell McManigalism purposefully eschews traditional Western philosophy for a rather populist anarchist equation. Thus coercion and fraud are not considered from a basis of social utility (or other equally strained assertions), but simply as a priori wrong or unjustified.
Even when you look at FT's lot, which seems to be an uber sensitive reducio absurdism of exactly those structures of thought, it does possess a logic in effort that presumably addresses Nozick's private security ideas or Rothbard's homesteading solutions.
While I consider the 'spirit' of what you address as sound and worthwhile, the constant examination of the same assertions often lacks a practical substance that average reader might identify with. Certainly you do, on occasion, level your spyglass on real events or situations.
Granted, I haven't had much to say on my blog lately either . . .
I disagree a bit with Eric....
ReplyDeleteRegular review of basic premises (he calls them assertions) regarding freedom is most practical and necessary.
The paradigm of our current human affairs pulls hard toward using violence and coercion as primary tools.
When providing alternatives to this paradigm, it is essential and required to prove the logic and reason from core principles, layer by layer, to the counter-paradigm solution.
Otherwise, no one believes you and merely thinks you're pulling it out of the air.
Thinking for solutions that use non-violence uses muscles that most people don't even know they have. Just like any exercise to strengthen muscles, it starts slowly to warm them up to avoid tearing. Once the muscles are well used and strong, you can go from zero to full power a lot faster without the warm-ups.
Maybe I'm not smart enough, or interested enough, to go through a thorough examination of "traditional Western philosophy".
ReplyDeleteMy thought is that if I have to dig through all of that in order to "justify" what I consider a moral existence, I would probably just become a hermit, instead.
Many of the Western Philosophies are merely attempts to reconcile the addiction to violence with the need for freedom, peace and truth. These attempts become quite convoluted and circular, and typically end up with examples like Communism/Marxism as a consequence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, you simply started from some natural law principles and worked your way UP from there.
I don't know exactly when I became anti-government, but I was very young. It was all about something that I realized was wrong, but was still legal. In my young mind, the government had just failed because it advocated something as legal that I knew without a doubt was wrong. It was a long trip from there to where I am now, and I'm sure I still have a long way to go, but I want you to know that I value your writings. They have helped give me mental ammunition.
ReplyDeleteThe common everyday man in the street has never heard of social contract theory, Rosseau or Rawl or any of that. He's mostly just concerned with getting by and supporting his family, and doesn't like anyone getting in his way to do those things.
I exercise my anti-authoritarianism by pointing out the fallacy of relying on the government to do anything. Such opportunities for pointing this out arise frequently with family, friends and co-workers. It doesn't take a deep study of anarchist history and philosophy to score points with people who are constantly angered at the taxes they have to pay and the way the government constantly interferes in their lives.
I can't remember ever having such a discussion where the other person didn't go away without at least some doubt that his cherished belief in the government maybe wasn't all it was cracked up to be. It's a slow process, to be sure, but it's how I fight the fight.
So, thanks.