Freedom Movement Timeline Versus Strawman Attacks

(13 short paragraphs plus endnotes, Revision Four, copyleft 5-14-2016.)strawmanillustration

1. Present mainstream culture includes a practice of refusing to consider any alternative to the social institution of The State, aka Government. A common strawman argument against those discussing more than one way to solve a problem is to portray us as naive or as advocating violence.

2. I’m anti-revolution because I’m pro-evolution, meaning successful-anarchy/the-voluntary-society will first require a multi-generational cultural change. Present society isn’t ready for instant statelessness, but to say our species never will be is a non sequitur.

3. For the same reason, I’m not wholesale anti-military or anti-police; they’re individuals and like all groups of individuals, some are healthy towards the generic individual in society, and some are not.

3.a. The root cause of war is very small percentage of individuals who, as sociopaths, find it advantageous based on the assumption they as individuals won’t fall victim. In the future, those they prey upon will have the knowledge to raise children in a way that they don’t become sociopaths, and those few remaining sociopaths will be identified and cared for as insane rather than followed.

3.b. Just as present society isn’t ready for instant statelessness, so it’s not ready to be instantly devoid of military or police. Rather, the social institutions of large-scale defense and local law enforcement will transition over generations into some different form; probably more of a preventive than reactive nature. Present generations can speculate and possibly pass some ideas forward, but future generations will determine the exact what and how. The same applies to preventing government from rising again.

4. It took the western civilization abolitionists from the early 1700s to the early 1800s to change mainstream culture from accepting chattel slavery to abhorring it. Chattel slavery was abolished through laws enforced through violence. One-sided advances in weaponry since then mean violence won’t work against the state. However, as a parasite, it can be starved once enough people — especially military and police — understand what it is and what the alternatives are.

5. Presently the discussion of government’s true nature and its alternatives is just beginning. We’re where the abolitionist were in the 1600s; discussing and experimenting mostly among ourselves. However, our message may spread faster due to technologies in our favor.

6. Like science, alternatives to the state advance one generation at a time because the gatekeepers are invested in the status quo. Their weakness is they’re more invested in themselves than future generations. Another is they don’t produce wealth, they only transfer it. The social institution of the state is a parasite, and parasites can be starved.

7. Although I agree with the logic of anarcho-capitalism, I see no problem with multiple other systems existing side-by-side, as long as one doesn’t impose on another or on the individuals involved. Additionally, future generations may develop presently unknown better ideas and implementations.

8. A comment I got on Release One of this essay was “‘Present society isn’t ready’ is not a very convincing defense for moral violations……what does that have to do with my right to be free?” I wrote the above mini-essay based on people naysaying about the future, so that’s why I overlooked that point.

8.a. I may not be the best person to answer the question, but I am (in my unbiased view) a concise writer who writes as a part of his critical thinking process. I’ll title it something like “What are ‘Rights’ and How Can You and I Best Protect Ours’ Now?”

8.b. It will include some points from Ben Stone’s http://www.badquaker.com/archives/2551. The definition of rights also depends on the definition of what’s moral/immoral, and I’m also working on that mini-essay. When done, I’ll update this Release Two to Release Three with the links.

___________________________

Endnotes

Paragraph 1.:

– Government in the context of the state differs from the concept of government in the context of an individual governing him or herself.

– Some are too impatient to consider multi-generational change as a strategy.

– An illusionary shortcut to multi-generational change is the idea of just getting the correct people into office. But any system depending on the benevolence of its office holders is a bad system.

Paragraph 2. – By “successful anarchy”, I don’t mean 100% perfect societies, I mean multiple social institutions to choose from being in total more successful than the social institution of the state. I assume our species doesn’t go extinct first; whether or not we do is probably about a 50-50.

Paragraph 3. – By the generic individual in society, I mean the smallest minority is the individual; that individual rights trump any alleged group rights.

Paragraph 7 – One misunderstanding about anarcho-capitalism is everything is for-profit. Wiki-type organizations, charity organizations, etc. are all within the original definition an-cap-ism; with the caveat that for-profits can choose to compete with charities or whatever other organization.

This entry was posted in economics, essay/mini-essay, history, pic, propaganda/sophism, win-win-politics. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *