By the way, Stallman's a bombastic lunatic.
I strongly disagree.
So did I. One grows out of that after a while.
"The growing out of it" line is the lamest excuse for a point I've ever heard. Beside I'm 25 thus probably your age or older.
It's not a "discuss Stallman" thread, but at least try to have a bit of consistence in your comment.
That wasn't an argument, it was a dismissive "I used to agree with what you're saying, and from that perspective saw enough to realize how essentially flawed such a viewpoint is."
Interesting. So you're at roughly the hunter/gatherer stage of social development then? Don't worry, there are still a few likeminded societies left, you could go join them! You would have to give up all those modern things like medicine, industry, sanitary food, actual housing, electricity, and internet access, but all those are just Authoritarian Chains that totally require logistics, organization, and other Authoritarian Bullshit, so you'll probably be happier.
Organization does not require coercive authority. I don't know why people get so stuck on this idea. All that's required for organization is collective agreement on a goal, and someone with knowledge of how to attain that goal to guide (not threaten) other members of the group if the knowledge isn't universal. Disagreement shouldn't result in punishment, only non-participation. And I can explain to you how every one of those modern benefits you listed is actually hindered by authoritative hierarchy if you wish.
"All that's required to go to the moon is to just try really hard to fly."
You don't seem to realize a few really important things:
While most people will at least attempt to behave in a fair and just manner in dealing with others, there will always be those who don't, and before you say "Oh, they could just be exiled or ignored in an Anarchist Utopia",
they're not blatantly different from everyone else (except the ones who are, essentially, gibbering lunatics, and even then they're rarely considered more than a little offputting), (we'll call them "malicious actors" for the rest of this argument, for the sake of brevity) and if they have even the slightest modicum of sense they can completely subvert your Anarchist Utopia from within, and since there's no "Coercive Authority" to stop them, they can just assemble their own "Coercive Authority", devoted entirely to their own benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
Further, while people will, as said, generally act in the way they believe to be best, there is rarely consensus, and it can be even more screwed up by malicious actors trying to subvert things to their benefit (see the preceding point), leaving society a deadlocked clusterfuck, susceptible to disaster or exploitation by malicious actors.
Lastly, and drawing on the aforementioned points, individual rights can only be enforced by "Coercive Authority": if you are not strong enough to protect your interests via threat of force, or lack trustworthy allies who can do this for you, you will be exploited by stronger malicious actors in the absence of a mostly benevolent "Coercive Authority" (such as the one we have now, flawed though it may be; there is little argument that it is preferable to rule by criminal syndicates, street gangs, and more blatant petty warlord figures, which are exactly the parties that would benefit most from removing or weakening the government, and attempting to institute an "Anarchist Utopia") enforcing rule of law.
Author
Topic: Wikileaks guy arrested, Senator attempting retroactive law changing! (Read 48711 times)