I think the entire paradigm of anarchism versus government centralized ruling really amounts to self organization versus fascist direct rule in which those who excuse themselves through seizing power speak of their special entitlement or privilege of ruling others by managing their lives.
Oppression comes in the form where individuals having their lives managed for them become enslaved by those within power structure at the top.
Anarchists seek individual independence of self directing and ruling themselves through self organization where government supporters think that people should not be able to self organized themselves or that generally most people are unable to effectively in the manner that they like ideally.
The anarchist wants self organization and the ability to self direct themselves without interference where the typical government supporter of any kind respond with denying such desires.
Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn’t the case?
You really, really need to work on the redundancies in your writing (note: “really, really” is also a redundancy, but some redundancies can be useful – that one is useful as an emphasizer).
eg: self-direct themselves
self-organize themselves
Can anybody here tell me otherwise that this isn’t the case?
Just sounds better and more intelligent, in the first two examples, to choose ONE instance of self. Choose self-organize, or organize themselves, not both.
In the last example, likewise, choose one: “Can anybody here tell me otherwise?” or “Can anybody here tell me that this isn’t the case?”
Anyway, writing critique over—
I’m somewhat of an anarchist myself, and some of your writings actually make you look a bit like a statist sometimes, honestly. The form of anarchist that I would be were I truly dedicated to the whole thing can be described on each of these two pages, which are more or less synonymous: voluntarism / agorism
I think an important difference to highlight is that in many cases, the anarchist simply acknowledges that he is fully capable of self-organising and self-directing, and thus rejects the idea of a government as the necessary entity that the statist sees it as. This, I think, is why many entrepreneurs often have ancap/minarchist proclivities. Anarchists are just braver, agorists even more so.
Come now, Joker said he wants to be a published writer one day. I’m just giving him a hand. If he ever hopes to get published, he won’t get away with that stuff then. Better to learn good practices sooner rather than later.
You make it sound like you can’t take do anything with any amount of personal freedom, yes there are restrictions in civlization but are they really as bad as you claim for the most part?
The working of any government grow complex and change with time and if one does not investigate it’s origins they can quickly forget its purpose an therefore question its justification for being, this is much more obvious when you encounter incompetent or corrupt leaders and government officials/employees.
One can see though, Corruption often come out of a sense of selfishness, in that sense corrupt officials are undermining government, acting in an anarchistic manner if you will.
I support Government and organization because of its (potentially) vastly superior ability for progression and power.
In fact the reason why anarchism is weak is because it is for the most part purposeless.
It only has one distinct purpose which is to abolish government and for the most part if you check your history that’s the only time it’s ever gathered any amount of strength and even then it often fails in it’s mission.
Jokers brand of Individualistic anarchism is an even weaker (if a more honest to the idea of anarchism) form of the ideaology.
Government when run efficiantly is powerful and purposeful and that is why it has and will continue to trump anarchism. Combine that with the fact that humans are (for the most part) social beings, it’s simply an impotent ideology.