"Anarchy doesn't produce freedom, it produces struggles for dominance in the real world."
Anarchy is the recognition that identifying as a 'ruler' does not give a persona valid excuse to rule others by force. Special costumes, flags, raised podiums or a mob of cheering supporters also do not wash.
Therefore anarchy is not MORE freedom, it is LESS freedom. An anarchic society gives NOBODY the luxury of being able to rule others 'legitimately' (a luxury and freedom currently enjoyed by politicians the world over).
An anarchic society would place all politicians (and their supporters) in the same category as any other violent mafia.
"I have seen places without a functional " state" places of pure anarchy."
You don't give any details, but it sounds like the sort of mess created when everybody is still of a statist mindset, and has been that way for generations. What you describe sounds like 'unstable and volatile statism', not anarchy.
"examine any region on earth , at any time, without an organized state."
Even in highly 'organised states' the majority of everyday transactions are conducted under the principles of anarchy (a respect for human rights), not statism (a disrespect for human rights). If someone violates your property or person you will call them a thief, mugger, rapist, extortionist, pickpocket, fraudster or mafia thug. Everyone around you will agree with that label and everyone will condemn the behaviour.
'Rule by force' is simply not tolerated in any modern progressive civilised society. And wearing special costumes or waving special flags is not considered a valid excuse for behaving like that.
Anarchy is one of the LEAST controversial stances you could possibly take.
This is why governments have to resort to heroic levels of propaganda, sophistry and trickery to justify their position as the exception to the rule. To perpetuate the MONUMENTAL degree of cognitive dissonance required for citizens to tolerate statism, in an otherwise moral and rational society, they have to indoctrinate the young from age 4 until adulthood with 6 hours of daily indoctrination. They have to control all media and get them to promote the contradiction in every news program, without ever addressing it (or even pointing it out). They have to organise massive pageants and parades and other elaborate rituals. And they have to create a false left/ right paradigm (and circus show) to trick the population into choosing one 'side' or the other, when both sides are them!
The contradiction of statism is absurd. It asserts that violating another person's property and person is bad (so far, so good), and a small group of people should therefore enjoy a monopoly on the legal right to violate other people's property and person. And that this shall be called 'outlawing' such behaviour.
It is like saying "rape is bad, which is why we must enjoy a monopoly on the legal right to commit rape.... because otherwise it would be anarchy".
This absurd logic is falling apart, which is why the group claiming a monopolistic right to rule others by force have to keep inventing (or manufacturing) crisis, after crisis, after crisis to keep society in a perpetual state of emergency in order to use THAT to justify their continued monopoly on legally violating everyone else's basic human rights.
This 'state of emergency' (pun intended) will only continue to escalate, until every day sees a new MASSIVE THREAT!!!!!! on the news to justify more rule by force....... and it will only stop when the masses resolve their state of cognitive dissonance on this issue, and agree that 'outlawing' theft, murder, extortion, kidnapping etc means that NOBODY should have the legal right to behave that way - including (and this is the important bit) those who we employ to enforce those laws.
Anarchy is therefore the same society we already have now, except with one small tweak.....
the laws also apply equally to politicians and police. That's it. That's how we make the transition from statism to anarchy.
"Which is why I favor Minarchism."
Minarchism is just pruning statism. It doesn't address the root issue. A small government would lead to an explosion of productivity, a huge boost in morale and a massive rise in standards of living. Everyone would be much better off and much happier. Then the government would add a new tax here, a new social program there.... and nobody would object because life was great........ and before long we'd be right back to having a massive government again.
America started off as a minarchist society, which is why it became the most productive and rich society in the world, which in turn gave rise to the biggest and most powerful government.
"If only Humans were not so, Human.."
If you truly believe ALL humans have the capacity to be evil and do harm, then it makes sense to condemn and OUTLAW theft, extortion, kidnapping, murder etc for ALL humans and not just for the 99%.
A society which applies its laws to 100% of the population is by definition in a state of an-archy ('no rulers'). When you give 1% a special exemption from the law you have statism.
"Total liberty, freedom and love between, for, in all is a beautiful dream"
If you think it's unrealistic for people to all be nice all the time, and to always respect each other's person and property then it would make sense to outlaw theft, extortion, murder etc for everyone.
You seem to understand the practical value of adopting a morally consistent stance, yet you still want to create a tiny little mafia who are exempt from basic morals, and then put that tiny mafia in charge of running society on our behalf. You seem to have a mental block on the idea of universally consistent morals and laws for everyone.
In science we pretty much accept that a scientific theory (a 'law of physics') much apply universally, otherwise it is invalid. Is it really that weird to demand moral rules also apply universally and equally to everyone?
Isn't that requirement for universal consistency what separates a modern, evolved, high civilisation from a backward, superstitious, barbaric one?
"That's all it is though, a fantasy."
How so? You've not made an actual argument for why moral rules (and any laws derived from them) should not apply to everyone. Seems like a no brainer to me.
1. Getting on a bus and agreeing to pay the fair (instead of hijacking the bus).
2. Buying and selling goods in a free market using peaceful negotiation (instead of stealing or confiscating by force, or imposing a violent monopoly).
3. Dating and having sex in a consensual manner (instead of demanding sex as a right, and obtaining it through threats or violence).
4. Providing security (of property or person) as a service which is negotiated voluntarily and formalised with a contract (rather than extorting money from people in order to provide them with 'protection').
5. Offering education services in a free market for those who wish to purchase them (rather than forcing everyone to pay for your education services under threat of kidnapping).
Anarchy is any transaction, interaction or relationship which is conducted with a mutual respect for each other's person and property. In other words, anarchy is when people go about their daily lives and don't act like 'rulers'.
Anarchy is the default setting for any modern, civilised society.
You have yet to explain why you think anybody in society should be exempt from fundamental moral rules (and their associated laws), that apply to the rest of us.
"One place humans live free, without hierarchy, or dominance struggles , in peace and liberty."
Anarchy is NONE of those things. An anarchic society is still full of thugs, crooks, dominance struggles, hierarchies and people with bad breath. The only difference between our current society and an anarchic society is that in an anarchic society theft, extortion, murder, kidnapping etc has been outlawed for everyone.
This means being a crook, thief, mafia, extortionist, murderer etc carries a HUGE risk (ie deterrent). Outlawing rape does not prevent rape. But it does serve as a deterrent to committing rape. Your argument is that outlawing rape is a 'fantasy' and 'utopian' because even if we outlawed rape some people would still commit rape. This is quite true, but is is not a valid reason to NOT outlaw rape, or to give some people in society a special pass so that rape laws do not apply to them. That's just silly.
As a statist you struggle to imagine a world of moral consistency. In the past some people accepted that a king had the moral right to rape women ('primae noctis') because he was the king. To imagine a world where the king was NOT exempt from laws against raping was 'a fantasy' and 'utopian'.
The multi century project known as 'progress' basically consists of expanding moral rules to include everyone. If a king openly raped women today most people would condemn the behaviour as immoral. The concept of 'primae noctis' (or the general concept of 'might makes right') would not wash, as it once did.
Society is moving generally away from statism, and towards anarchy. We are gradually (and painfully slowly) extending basic moral rules (and the laws derived from them) to apply to everyone, and not just the peasant class.
If enough people decide to CONSTRICT moral rules again, and bring back primae noctis (as an example), it will return and there won;t be a thing you can do about it. YOU will be regarded as 'utopian' if you oppose it.
Likewise, if enough people continue to EXTEND moral rules to make them more consistent (applicable to all) we will end up with anarchy, and nobody will have the moral or legal right to rule others, even if they put on the most splendid costume imaginable!
The point being.... 'society' is entirely the result of what we consider morally acceptable or not. So the argument of 'it's utopian' or 'it's fantasy' is not valid. Lots of social conventions we consider normal today were considered 'utopian' and 'hopelessly idealistic' by our ancestors.
Now, if you would like to make a coherent argument for why YOU personally think anyone in society should be exempt from moral rules, and their associated laws, that apply to the rest of us, please make your case.
Yes. Please make YOUR moral argument for raping, stealing, murdering, extortion, kidnapping or assaulting.
"Who decides the rules?"
Anybody is free to make their case for legalising murder, rape, theft etc.
In practice, we all agree these behaviours are immoral. You're playing dumb. The issue is NOT whether these behaviours are moral or not. The issue is whether anybody in society should be EXEMPT from these most basic moral rules/ laws.
You keep evading this issue.
"If there are rules, or principles, that exist, that is an organization, ie, a government."
If rules exist then government cannot exist. Rules mean 'universally applicable conditions'. A government is BY DEFINITION a group who are exempt from rules/ laws.
In a statist society we DO NOT HAVE rules. We have pseudo 'rules' that apply only to the 99% and not to the 1%. They only call them rules to trick you.
Here is a rule: no raping.
This means nobody has the right to rape.
Here is another rule: no raping ... except when we do it, then it's OK.
This is not a rule. It's a trick! Do you see?
A society which allows 'primae noctis' by law, has NOT outlawed rape.
"All human interaction requires a frame work that is established one of two ways, voluntary or by force."
Anarchy does not mean no enforcement, it just means no moral hypocrisy.
Enforcing rules (laws) against murder, theft, extortion etc produces a society which has no rulers (because nobody is exempt from the law). Therefore enforcing the law leads to a state of anarchy, provided the law is consistent (it applies equally to all).
Tweaking the law to make some people exempt from the law creates statism, which is a society which has no rules, and laws which are completely inconsistent and hypocritical.
You either have rules (universally applicable conditions) or you have rulers (people for whom no rules apply). You can't have both.
Please can you make YOUR moral argument for raping, stealing, murdering, extortion, kidnapping or assaulting.
If you can't make a moral argument for these things, then presumably you agree that such behaviour should be outlawed, and that nobody should be exempt from the law.
If the authority is GOD, then there is your hierarchy of power.
If it is individual choice then there are no standards.
Have you studied Psychology?
Anthropology?
Sociology?
History?
Logic?
What is the basis of "universally accepted rules?
BTW,
The definition of the word, rule:
noun
Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
The duration of such power.
An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Law:
noun
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system.
"international law."
The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system.
"a breakdown of law and civilized behavior."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Custom:
noun
A traditional practice or usual way of doing something followed by a social group or people.
The tradition or body of such practices.
"The respect that is by custom accorded to the king."
A habitual practice of a person: synonym: habit.
"my custom of reading a little before sleep."
Similar: habit
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • Tradition:
noun
The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.
"cultural practices that are preserved by tradition."
A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
"the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism."
A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: synonym: heritage.
"followed family tradition in dress and manners."
Similar: heritage
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
morality
/mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-/
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
"questioned the morality of my actions."
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
"religious morality; Christian morality."
Virtuous conduct.
"commended his morality."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
ethics
noun
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions.
"political or social ethics; medical ethics."
The study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct.
Morality
So,
Which set of cultural values apply?
What is the source of the asserted definition of morality?
Thank you for sharing such a poignant and beautiful family story with us. Out of curiosity are you moving to Mexico for better opportunities or to get away from Canada's ever growing totalitarianism? Whatever the reason, it's none of my business, and I do wish you nothing but the best in all your endeavors. I do hope you will continue writing and producing content in the future regardless of where you may go! Blessings
Thank you @Nancy Mercier. New opportunities, climate, culture, novelty, change, exploration, and yes— Canada’s increasing totalitarianism, which is alarming. Mexico was something we had in mind as a plan B, but we will make it our plan A for a period, try it out, and adapt as we go. Too difficult to plan indefinitely into the future. I will be documenting parts of my journey here. :)
If you mean libertarianism in the american capitalist interpretation of that word (which isn't the original meaning of what libertatianism was originally. Libertarianism was originally in europe as left libertarianism ie. Anarchism, like what Bakunin and Kropotkin talked about and like what the Spanish uprising of 1936 was all about and the free anarchist/left-libertarian state established in roughly half of Spain between the years 1936-1939, which was complrtely run by the people with no bosses and no elavated class of rulers, before being brutally crushed by right-wing fascists and wealthy capitalists in 1939 to re-establish a class society of rulers and ruled), but if you mean libertarianism in the american interpretation of the word (right-wing capitalist libertarianism), then yes, it is a utopia and an extremely destructive one for human freedom and well-being, if implemented. See this brilliant essay that describes what such a society would actually look like and what it actually leads to (begin with right-wing libertarian ideals and with what seems like a paradise of freedom but read to the end)
If you take a look at what war propaganda is and its purpose. It's purpose is to dehumanize an entire race or group of people. Naturally people do not think that walking around and murdering other families because a murderer is on the loose is ok. War propaganda does this. Guilt by association is a lie and evil.
I'm glad your guest spent some time on the idea of the inevitable failure of the multiculturalism experiment in Western societies, which I think I have droned on about in responses to one or two of your other interviews ! Here in the UK, there was a sizeable influx of West Indian people in the 1950s, and they and their children became assimilated in UK society, seemingly without any of the tensions seen in the more recent migration waves from the Middle East and North Africa. Now, I am sure that there were issues during this time, as the UK was racially homogeneous , as was all of Europe. But in my thinking, it is clear that these issues were less problematic and more superficial because of a couple of simple things. The first is that these were English speakers - a fact that I believe should not be underestimated in importance as it goes straight to our want of something familiar in the face of something otherwise unfamiliar - and also they were essentially Christian in belief as far as I am aware. So being Christian, their laws were built upon the same moral bedrock as Europeans. A country's legal system is founded and continues to prevail because of an implicit acceptance of those laws as being based on God's immutable laws. The Ten Commandments, essentially. That is, as you point out, a multi-ethnic society, and is a functional model. Introduce a conflicting worldview into a (by now) anything-goes moral vacuum but with the same legacy legal structures, and you have a major problem. For the moment, our politicians keep applying sticking plasters in the form of "hate speech" legislation, which in the UK and Ireland is starting to creep into pre-crime Thought Police re-definitions of words like "extremism" in order to pretend that the problem is not enough censure and prosecution for free speech. Just do more of that and everything will be fine. On another point raised: one thing I still struggle with is this theme of left-wing activists, particularly high-profile ones like Saint Greta, being all just anti-semites underneath everything. I wondered what your thinking is on that one? Maybe I have missed something, as I am equally appalled at what happened on Oct 7th as I am mystified by the ongoing response of the Israeli government as a way forward. And obviously I am not remotely on the Left . Are we saying that once one has picked a side on a moral basis, that one should remain steadfast in that, no matter what the consequences further down the line? I just would be interested to know your views on that, as I find myself in a moral quagmire when I try to rationalise over the situation there . On a lighter note, I really enjoyed the last segment on humour. That is spot on about the Left - they have absolutely no sense of humour, because they lack self-awareness in my view. And lampooning them as often as possible is the way forward, especially on neutral ground where the undecided live. As it might have said in the Good Book : The memes shall inherit the earth :)
Anyway, a long and somewhat rambling comment on my part, but another epic interview Kate. Thank you!
Nice!
Humans evolved from family structures, social organizations, Our ancestors did not hunt Mastodon, Alone, nor, could they have.
I have seen places without a functional " state" places of pure anarchy.
Hierarchy developed, order developed, the strong, the ruthless, established dominance and control.
The weak, had to either Die, serve, or band together with others in order to resist the strong.
Anarchy doesn't produce freedom, it produces struggles for dominance in the real world.
For evidence, examine any region on earth , at any time, without an organized state.
( West Africa at times, Somalia, Central aAfrica.)
Take notice that even primitive cultures, ie, Amazonian tribes, New Guinea high lands, their is an organized functioning socio political system.
No Anarchy.
That said,
Minarchism,
In form of a Constitutional Republic, provides, to date, the greatest preservation of Individual liberty, security, stability.
Which is why I favor Minarchism.
Though,
If only Humans were not so, Human..
Total liberty, freedom and love between, for, in all is a beautiful dream.
That's all it is though, a fantasy.
Like, Marxism/Socialism/Fascist utopia's,
Fantasy.
The reality of those fantasies is brutality, cruelty, and mass graves.
"Anarchy doesn't produce freedom, it produces struggles for dominance in the real world."
Anarchy is the recognition that identifying as a 'ruler' does not give a persona valid excuse to rule others by force. Special costumes, flags, raised podiums or a mob of cheering supporters also do not wash.
Therefore anarchy is not MORE freedom, it is LESS freedom. An anarchic society gives NOBODY the luxury of being able to rule others 'legitimately' (a luxury and freedom currently enjoyed by politicians the world over).
An anarchic society would place all politicians (and their supporters) in the same category as any other violent mafia.
"I have seen places without a functional " state" places of pure anarchy."
You don't give any details, but it sounds like the sort of mess created when everybody is still of a statist mindset, and has been that way for generations. What you describe sounds like 'unstable and volatile statism', not anarchy.
"examine any region on earth , at any time, without an organized state."
Even in highly 'organised states' the majority of everyday transactions are conducted under the principles of anarchy (a respect for human rights), not statism (a disrespect for human rights). If someone violates your property or person you will call them a thief, mugger, rapist, extortionist, pickpocket, fraudster or mafia thug. Everyone around you will agree with that label and everyone will condemn the behaviour.
'Rule by force' is simply not tolerated in any modern progressive civilised society. And wearing special costumes or waving special flags is not considered a valid excuse for behaving like that.
Anarchy is one of the LEAST controversial stances you could possibly take.
This is why governments have to resort to heroic levels of propaganda, sophistry and trickery to justify their position as the exception to the rule. To perpetuate the MONUMENTAL degree of cognitive dissonance required for citizens to tolerate statism, in an otherwise moral and rational society, they have to indoctrinate the young from age 4 until adulthood with 6 hours of daily indoctrination. They have to control all media and get them to promote the contradiction in every news program, without ever addressing it (or even pointing it out). They have to organise massive pageants and parades and other elaborate rituals. And they have to create a false left/ right paradigm (and circus show) to trick the population into choosing one 'side' or the other, when both sides are them!
The contradiction of statism is absurd. It asserts that violating another person's property and person is bad (so far, so good), and a small group of people should therefore enjoy a monopoly on the legal right to violate other people's property and person. And that this shall be called 'outlawing' such behaviour.
It is like saying "rape is bad, which is why we must enjoy a monopoly on the legal right to commit rape.... because otherwise it would be anarchy".
This absurd logic is falling apart, which is why the group claiming a monopolistic right to rule others by force have to keep inventing (or manufacturing) crisis, after crisis, after crisis to keep society in a perpetual state of emergency in order to use THAT to justify their continued monopoly on legally violating everyone else's basic human rights.
This 'state of emergency' (pun intended) will only continue to escalate, until every day sees a new MASSIVE THREAT!!!!!! on the news to justify more rule by force....... and it will only stop when the masses resolve their state of cognitive dissonance on this issue, and agree that 'outlawing' theft, murder, extortion, kidnapping etc means that NOBODY should have the legal right to behave that way - including (and this is the important bit) those who we employ to enforce those laws.
Anarchy is therefore the same society we already have now, except with one small tweak.....
the laws also apply equally to politicians and police. That's it. That's how we make the transition from statism to anarchy.
"Which is why I favor Minarchism."
Minarchism is just pruning statism. It doesn't address the root issue. A small government would lead to an explosion of productivity, a huge boost in morale and a massive rise in standards of living. Everyone would be much better off and much happier. Then the government would add a new tax here, a new social program there.... and nobody would object because life was great........ and before long we'd be right back to having a massive government again.
America started off as a minarchist society, which is why it became the most productive and rich society in the world, which in turn gave rise to the biggest and most powerful government.
"If only Humans were not so, Human.."
If you truly believe ALL humans have the capacity to be evil and do harm, then it makes sense to condemn and OUTLAW theft, extortion, kidnapping, murder etc for ALL humans and not just for the 99%.
A society which applies its laws to 100% of the population is by definition in a state of an-archy ('no rulers'). When you give 1% a special exemption from the law you have statism.
"Total liberty, freedom and love between, for, in all is a beautiful dream"
If you think it's unrealistic for people to all be nice all the time, and to always respect each other's person and property then it would make sense to outlaw theft, extortion, murder etc for everyone.
You seem to understand the practical value of adopting a morally consistent stance, yet you still want to create a tiny little mafia who are exempt from basic morals, and then put that tiny mafia in charge of running society on our behalf. You seem to have a mental block on the idea of universally consistent morals and laws for everyone.
In science we pretty much accept that a scientific theory (a 'law of physics') much apply universally, otherwise it is invalid. Is it really that weird to demand moral rules also apply universally and equally to everyone?
Isn't that requirement for universal consistency what separates a modern, evolved, high civilisation from a backward, superstitious, barbaric one?
"That's all it is though, a fantasy."
How so? You've not made an actual argument for why moral rules (and any laws derived from them) should not apply to everyone. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Show me one true anarchy please. Just one.
One place humans live free, without hierarchy, or dominance struggles , in peace and liberty.
Just one.
Not a commune or enclave within the protected realm of an organized state.
One single example you describe.
As for my example.
Every single tribe and or clan of the Amazon, Andes, Pampas.
The Australian Aboriginal peoples, Micronesia, New Guinea highlands. Africa, Europe, Asia, Austrxlia
So where is your reaworld example?l
"Show me one true anarchy please. Just one."
Here's several.
1. Getting on a bus and agreeing to pay the fair (instead of hijacking the bus).
2. Buying and selling goods in a free market using peaceful negotiation (instead of stealing or confiscating by force, or imposing a violent monopoly).
3. Dating and having sex in a consensual manner (instead of demanding sex as a right, and obtaining it through threats or violence).
4. Providing security (of property or person) as a service which is negotiated voluntarily and formalised with a contract (rather than extorting money from people in order to provide them with 'protection').
5. Offering education services in a free market for those who wish to purchase them (rather than forcing everyone to pay for your education services under threat of kidnapping).
Anarchy is any transaction, interaction or relationship which is conducted with a mutual respect for each other's person and property. In other words, anarchy is when people go about their daily lives and don't act like 'rulers'.
Anarchy is the default setting for any modern, civilised society.
You have yet to explain why you think anybody in society should be exempt from fundamental moral rules (and their associated laws), that apply to the rest of us.
"One place humans live free, without hierarchy, or dominance struggles , in peace and liberty."
Anarchy is NONE of those things. An anarchic society is still full of thugs, crooks, dominance struggles, hierarchies and people with bad breath. The only difference between our current society and an anarchic society is that in an anarchic society theft, extortion, murder, kidnapping etc has been outlawed for everyone.
This means being a crook, thief, mafia, extortionist, murderer etc carries a HUGE risk (ie deterrent). Outlawing rape does not prevent rape. But it does serve as a deterrent to committing rape. Your argument is that outlawing rape is a 'fantasy' and 'utopian' because even if we outlawed rape some people would still commit rape. This is quite true, but is is not a valid reason to NOT outlaw rape, or to give some people in society a special pass so that rape laws do not apply to them. That's just silly.
As a statist you struggle to imagine a world of moral consistency. In the past some people accepted that a king had the moral right to rape women ('primae noctis') because he was the king. To imagine a world where the king was NOT exempt from laws against raping was 'a fantasy' and 'utopian'.
The multi century project known as 'progress' basically consists of expanding moral rules to include everyone. If a king openly raped women today most people would condemn the behaviour as immoral. The concept of 'primae noctis' (or the general concept of 'might makes right') would not wash, as it once did.
Society is moving generally away from statism, and towards anarchy. We are gradually (and painfully slowly) extending basic moral rules (and the laws derived from them) to apply to everyone, and not just the peasant class.
If enough people decide to CONSTRICT moral rules again, and bring back primae noctis (as an example), it will return and there won;t be a thing you can do about it. YOU will be regarded as 'utopian' if you oppose it.
Likewise, if enough people continue to EXTEND moral rules to make them more consistent (applicable to all) we will end up with anarchy, and nobody will have the moral or legal right to rule others, even if they put on the most splendid costume imaginable!
The point being.... 'society' is entirely the result of what we consider morally acceptable or not. So the argument of 'it's utopian' or 'it's fantasy' is not valid. Lots of social conventions we consider normal today were considered 'utopian' and 'hopelessly idealistic' by our ancestors.
Now, if you would like to make a coherent argument for why YOU personally think anyone in society should be exempt from moral rules, and their associated laws, that apply to the rest of us, please make your case.
You assume there are fundamental moral rules.
Where do these rules come from?
How are they enforced?
Why am I required to obey something ?
Who decides the rules?
BTW,
If there are rules, or principles, that exist, that is an organization, ie, a government.
Thus, you demonstrate my point.
In human interaction there is no such thing as pure anarchy nor can there be.
All human interaction requires a frame work that is established one of two ways, voluntary or by force.
"You assume there are fundamental moral rules."
Yes. Please make YOUR moral argument for raping, stealing, murdering, extortion, kidnapping or assaulting.
"Who decides the rules?"
Anybody is free to make their case for legalising murder, rape, theft etc.
In practice, we all agree these behaviours are immoral. You're playing dumb. The issue is NOT whether these behaviours are moral or not. The issue is whether anybody in society should be EXEMPT from these most basic moral rules/ laws.
You keep evading this issue.
"If there are rules, or principles, that exist, that is an organization, ie, a government."
If rules exist then government cannot exist. Rules mean 'universally applicable conditions'. A government is BY DEFINITION a group who are exempt from rules/ laws.
In a statist society we DO NOT HAVE rules. We have pseudo 'rules' that apply only to the 99% and not to the 1%. They only call them rules to trick you.
Here is a rule: no raping.
This means nobody has the right to rape.
Here is another rule: no raping ... except when we do it, then it's OK.
This is not a rule. It's a trick! Do you see?
A society which allows 'primae noctis' by law, has NOT outlawed rape.
"All human interaction requires a frame work that is established one of two ways, voluntary or by force."
Anarchy does not mean no enforcement, it just means no moral hypocrisy.
Enforcing rules (laws) against murder, theft, extortion etc produces a society which has no rulers (because nobody is exempt from the law). Therefore enforcing the law leads to a state of anarchy, provided the law is consistent (it applies equally to all).
Tweaking the law to make some people exempt from the law creates statism, which is a society which has no rules, and laws which are completely inconsistent and hypocritical.
You either have rules (universally applicable conditions) or you have rulers (people for whom no rules apply). You can't have both.
Please can you make YOUR moral argument for raping, stealing, murdering, extortion, kidnapping or assaulting.
If you can't make a moral argument for these things, then presumably you agree that such behaviour should be outlawed, and that nobody should be exempt from the law.
I think perhaps you are over thinking it.
Cite the basis for Moral authority?
Is it GOD?
Is it Natural, i.e. product of evolution?
Study any primate social interactions.
If the authority is GOD, then there is your hierarchy of power.
If it is individual choice then there are no standards.
Have you studied Psychology?
Anthropology?
Sociology?
History?
Logic?
What is the basis of "universally accepted rules?
BTW,
The definition of the word, rule:
noun
Governing power or its possession or use; authority.
The duration of such power.
An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Law:
noun
A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system.
"international law."
The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system.
"a breakdown of law and civilized behavior."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
Custom:
noun
A traditional practice or usual way of doing something followed by a social group or people.
The tradition or body of such practices.
"The respect that is by custom accorded to the king."
A habitual practice of a person: synonym: habit.
"my custom of reading a little before sleep."
Similar: habit
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • Tradition:
noun
The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication.
"cultural practices that are preserved by tradition."
A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage.
"the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism."
A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: synonym: heritage.
"followed family tradition in dress and manners."
Similar: heritage
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
morality
/mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-/
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
"questioned the morality of my actions."
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
"religious morality; Christian morality."
Virtuous conduct.
"commended his morality."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
ethics
noun
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions.
"political or social ethics; medical ethics."
The study of principles relating to right and wrong conduct.
Morality
So,
Which set of cultural values apply?
What is the source of the asserted definition of morality?
Thank you for sharing such a poignant and beautiful family story with us. Out of curiosity are you moving to Mexico for better opportunities or to get away from Canada's ever growing totalitarianism? Whatever the reason, it's none of my business, and I do wish you nothing but the best in all your endeavors. I do hope you will continue writing and producing content in the future regardless of where you may go! Blessings
Thank you @Nancy Mercier. New opportunities, climate, culture, novelty, change, exploration, and yes— Canada’s increasing totalitarianism, which is alarming. Mexico was something we had in mind as a plan B, but we will make it our plan A for a period, try it out, and adapt as we go. Too difficult to plan indefinitely into the future. I will be documenting parts of my journey here. :)
If you mean libertarianism in the american capitalist interpretation of that word (which isn't the original meaning of what libertatianism was originally. Libertarianism was originally in europe as left libertarianism ie. Anarchism, like what Bakunin and Kropotkin talked about and like what the Spanish uprising of 1936 was all about and the free anarchist/left-libertarian state established in roughly half of Spain between the years 1936-1939, which was complrtely run by the people with no bosses and no elavated class of rulers, before being brutally crushed by right-wing fascists and wealthy capitalists in 1939 to re-establish a class society of rulers and ruled), but if you mean libertarianism in the american interpretation of the word (right-wing capitalist libertarianism), then yes, it is a utopia and an extremely destructive one for human freedom and well-being, if implemented. See this brilliant essay that describes what such a society would actually look like and what it actually leads to (begin with right-wing libertarian ideals and with what seems like a paradise of freedom but read to the end)
https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/libertaria-a-libertarian-paradise
PS. What he suggests instead, is described here https://www.pdrboston.org/why-egalitarianism-is-much-better and here https://johnspritzler.substack.com/p/why-have-no-rich-and-no-poor?
If you take a look at what war propaganda is and its purpose. It's purpose is to dehumanize an entire race or group of people. Naturally people do not think that walking around and murdering other families because a murderer is on the loose is ok. War propaganda does this. Guilt by association is a lie and evil.
I'm glad your guest spent some time on the idea of the inevitable failure of the multiculturalism experiment in Western societies, which I think I have droned on about in responses to one or two of your other interviews ! Here in the UK, there was a sizeable influx of West Indian people in the 1950s, and they and their children became assimilated in UK society, seemingly without any of the tensions seen in the more recent migration waves from the Middle East and North Africa. Now, I am sure that there were issues during this time, as the UK was racially homogeneous , as was all of Europe. But in my thinking, it is clear that these issues were less problematic and more superficial because of a couple of simple things. The first is that these were English speakers - a fact that I believe should not be underestimated in importance as it goes straight to our want of something familiar in the face of something otherwise unfamiliar - and also they were essentially Christian in belief as far as I am aware. So being Christian, their laws were built upon the same moral bedrock as Europeans. A country's legal system is founded and continues to prevail because of an implicit acceptance of those laws as being based on God's immutable laws. The Ten Commandments, essentially. That is, as you point out, a multi-ethnic society, and is a functional model. Introduce a conflicting worldview into a (by now) anything-goes moral vacuum but with the same legacy legal structures, and you have a major problem. For the moment, our politicians keep applying sticking plasters in the form of "hate speech" legislation, which in the UK and Ireland is starting to creep into pre-crime Thought Police re-definitions of words like "extremism" in order to pretend that the problem is not enough censure and prosecution for free speech. Just do more of that and everything will be fine. On another point raised: one thing I still struggle with is this theme of left-wing activists, particularly high-profile ones like Saint Greta, being all just anti-semites underneath everything. I wondered what your thinking is on that one? Maybe I have missed something, as I am equally appalled at what happened on Oct 7th as I am mystified by the ongoing response of the Israeli government as a way forward. And obviously I am not remotely on the Left . Are we saying that once one has picked a side on a moral basis, that one should remain steadfast in that, no matter what the consequences further down the line? I just would be interested to know your views on that, as I find myself in a moral quagmire when I try to rationalise over the situation there . On a lighter note, I really enjoyed the last segment on humour. That is spot on about the Left - they have absolutely no sense of humour, because they lack self-awareness in my view. And lampooning them as often as possible is the way forward, especially on neutral ground where the undecided live. As it might have said in the Good Book : The memes shall inherit the earth :)
Anyway, a long and somewhat rambling comment on my part, but another epic interview Kate. Thank you!