Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Another Anarchist Psychology

I'd really like to find a philosophy or group I can get behind without reservation. Can't. They're all hypocritical, which means self-condemning. That and I just think they're evil. Even standard anarchy needs substantial repair. Were I monarch of America with America's megalomania, I'd end up declaring war on everyone, including every other internal faction.

Priority one is the the search for something I can support, but a very close priority two is figuring out how to live cheek-by-jowl with so much that I think the world would be better off without. Quite aside from the moral aspects, even America's monarch-equivalent doesn't have the power to rid the world of the things they wish to rid it of, and anyway I don't want to find or design a philosophy that only works for the top 0.1% of 0.1% of the powerful. (Not because it might be evil, I just find it lacks aesthetically.)

The key is that all these hypocritical groups most likely think the world would be better off without me. Priority one and two merge. The philosophy I can support is one that suggests I should be left alone, and travelling back through the mirror, that means that I leave everyone else alone, unless they won't let me.

Take this alone and you're already hip-deep in a thick mixture of anarchy, property, and freedom. Making me not an anarchist means showing me how the above plausible alternatives aren't giving back less than their opportunity costs. And aren't just kinda evil.

There's also hearty chunks of physical violence. If there were no other considerations, this would justify unlimited retaliation against anyone who doesn't let me leave them alone.


Anonymous said...

Ancient Greek Cynicism?

Alrenous said...

I'd be more sympathetic to a modern Diogenes, yes. But, I would say the Cynics were too attached to asceticism and opposing the nomos. I would challenge Diogenes to live in a house an speak politely, just to see if he could. Should have listened more closely to Siddhartha.

I would agree no men are honest. I think the brain evolved its size due to an arms race of deception. So, then, is it not natural for men to lie?

I agree generally that, "Anthropos have complicated every simple gift of the gods," but it is also true that occasionally such things are worthwhile. In their time all such things served a purpose. Mainly, they have a tendency to dramatically outlive their purpose. Only a few are due to conspiracy and should never have been accepted at all. My main example is the rejection of consciousness as high-status being linked to the high-status rejection of Jesus.