civility among anarchists
anarchists come in a variety of ideologies, just as statists do. but one will rarely see two anarchists get into a frenzied argument about who is right or wrong, as you might when two statists meet, say a republican and a democrat.
anarchists are simply far more civilized. when two stripes of statists debate, it will often turn nasty or resentful, because the argument is essentially one of who will be able to gain the reigns of power in order to force the other to conform to certain arbitrary preferences. in essence, if a democrat wins, the republican will be forced to endure the oppression of the democratic government and vice versa if the republican wins. both sides are arguing why they should be able to rule over their opponent using the force of the state.
when an anarcho-syndicalist, an anarcho-communist or an anarcho-capitalist argue, it doesn't really matter who wins, or if anyone does. none of them, since they all oppose coercive government, want to use the force of the state to rule over the other. anarchists of any stripe can easily get along with any other anarchist because their ideologies, while starkly different, only represent a harmless personal preference rather than a threat.
statism is in opposition to civilization. those who advocate the state advocate that groups of individuals should grapple over control of the state power structure and the winner can impose, by threat of violence, their own preferences on everyone. if the religious right gains control of the state, then they get to force their so-called "Christian values" on the non-religious as well as those of different religions. if the socialist left gains control, then they get to force political redistribution of wealth onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. the hypocrisy of this is astounding. of course, they all want to force their beliefs onto others, but at the same time rarely recognize the precedent set for the losing side to do the same once they inevitably gain power. at my church, i often hear people expressing their desire to force Christian values onto everyone by law. i wonder though, if those same people would be happy to see muslims gain power and force sharia law onto Christians? somehow i think they would be opposed to that. it's all based on the arrogance that one group is superior to the other, therefore their arbitrary and poorly thought out preferences for others should be mandated for all under penalty of law.
this is not civilization. groups fighting itout to impose their will upon others is the definition of chaos. the state promotes this. anarchists, on the other hand realize that there is no need for the use of force against non aggressive individuals. even if they live in a way that is unattractive to some, the anarchist realizes that no one's preferences should be forced upon anyone else, lest those people try to do the same. that is the beauty of the "live and let live" philosophy - the foundation of civilization and rejection of the state.
anarchists are simply far more civilized. when two stripes of statists debate, it will often turn nasty or resentful, because the argument is essentially one of who will be able to gain the reigns of power in order to force the other to conform to certain arbitrary preferences. in essence, if a democrat wins, the republican will be forced to endure the oppression of the democratic government and vice versa if the republican wins. both sides are arguing why they should be able to rule over their opponent using the force of the state.
when an anarcho-syndicalist, an anarcho-communist or an anarcho-capitalist argue, it doesn't really matter who wins, or if anyone does. none of them, since they all oppose coercive government, want to use the force of the state to rule over the other. anarchists of any stripe can easily get along with any other anarchist because their ideologies, while starkly different, only represent a harmless personal preference rather than a threat.
statism is in opposition to civilization. those who advocate the state advocate that groups of individuals should grapple over control of the state power structure and the winner can impose, by threat of violence, their own preferences on everyone. if the religious right gains control of the state, then they get to force their so-called "Christian values" on the non-religious as well as those of different religions. if the socialist left gains control, then they get to force political redistribution of wealth onto everyone else, whether they like it or not. the hypocrisy of this is astounding. of course, they all want to force their beliefs onto others, but at the same time rarely recognize the precedent set for the losing side to do the same once they inevitably gain power. at my church, i often hear people expressing their desire to force Christian values onto everyone by law. i wonder though, if those same people would be happy to see muslims gain power and force sharia law onto Christians? somehow i think they would be opposed to that. it's all based on the arrogance that one group is superior to the other, therefore their arbitrary and poorly thought out preferences for others should be mandated for all under penalty of law.
this is not civilization. groups fighting itout to impose their will upon others is the definition of chaos. the state promotes this. anarchists, on the other hand realize that there is no need for the use of force against non aggressive individuals. even if they live in a way that is unattractive to some, the anarchist realizes that no one's preferences should be forced upon anyone else, lest those people try to do the same. that is the beauty of the "live and let live" philosophy - the foundation of civilization and rejection of the state.
Comments