From: singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram)
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Reply-To: singram@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:29:55 GMT

In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.054338.4946@news.duc.auburn.edu> singram@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>+In article 1@cs.cmu.edu, dwp+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug Philips) writes:
>+>longer exists.  Complete freedom cannot exist for everyone unless it isn't
>+>actually exercised, but then it isn't complete (freedom) anymore.
>+Well, look at it this way. If you have respect for others, and refuse to
>+use violent or non-violent means to coerce/force others to do your will,
>+then you are an anarchist. Allowing others to coerce you means you respect
>+their absolute freedom to do whatever they wish, although they are not
>+anarchists. We anarchists must live with all the rest of you, either by our
>+rules or yours. Glenn and I have chosen our rules.
>
>I think we are not communicating here.  What I was trying to point out was
>the logical inconsistencies that were pointed out as making a "rights"
>doctrine a joke also apply to the "complete freedom" doctrine.  I was not
>commenting on either one in any other way.

Ok, I see your point that to have complete freedom you can do whatever
you want. But the point isn't so much complete freedom, it is removal of
coercion. People are free to do whatever they want because I will attempt to
not coerce them to do anything they do not want to do. In things that effect
me directly, this means I will give them complete freedom to do whatever they
wish, even if it causes my death. The reason being, I feel that freedom from
violence and coercion is more important than my own life. Its like martyrdom,
I am willing to die for my beliefs, if necessary. I don't so much
want complete freedom as I want to be free from coercion that causes me to do
things agasinst my will. And I believe everyone should be free of any coercion.

>+It is hard to let you know exactly what goes on through my mind, what
>+makes me feel and think and do what I do.
>
>Perhaps that is partly why it is hard for you to explain (to others)
>your point of view, since you have difficulty articulating your
>reasons, feelings, thoughts?  And therefore why they have trouble
>understanding you?  (Do not think I am placing blame here, I am not.)

I don't have difficulty relating the intellectual points. It is the
reasons why I hold these beliefs, the fact that I hold most of my 
philosophy to be self-evident, that I begin to have problems. It seems
that with just a little thought people would not only understand, but
accept my views. But they don't. You might see good come from my stance,
but you are unwilling to take it to the extreme that I am attempting to take it to.
And that simple fact means that you DON'T understand it at all.

>We are bandying about the term
>"understanding" as if it were a simple term, but which I will now qualify as
>"intellectual understanding".  I believe that I have an intellectual
>understanding of the complete freedom doctrine.  But there is an emotional
>and/or spiritual dimension which is lacking.  Upon reflection, this is the
>kind of understanding that you claim to be missing.  My sense from your
>messages (including Glenn and probably others), is not that your
>friends/acquantences have trouble with the understanding on the
>intellectual level, but with the emotional/spiritual (Not to imply they
>are necessarily the same) level. 

Yes. There are people who can not even begin to relate to the intellectual
views I submit. These people are not worth my time or effort to even
attempt to talk to or encourage understanding (any) from. While
these people might be extremely nice, they are to me, merely sheep
in the herd. They are acquintances that I might play tennis or cards or
whatever with, but that's it.

Then there are my `friends' of which I have very few. (Two, exactly)
that can respect my views. They don't have a clue as to what makes me so keen
on this ideal of mine, however. I can see why... to them it probably
looks like I just picked up on this anarchy thing and obsessed on it,
as I don't talk about it, and have only recently (in the last year and a half)
held my current views. Before then, I held similar, but not so extreme
views. This is what makes me TRY to make people see. I didn't always
think the way I do, so others can change as well.

But then I think to what made me change. And I realize that nothing I can say
will change anyone, only they can make the decision. It is unexplainable. 
Something just clicked inside of me one day and said `everything you know
is wrong'. I went from a nihilistic pacifist to what I am now. I think
that it is a quantum leap to get to the moral/philosophical ground I stand
on now.

>I find it very obvious from my point of view
>on your messages that there is an emotional problem (pain, desiring to
>avoid pain, desire for fellowship, etc) which is not at all addressed in
>the intellectual level of the complete freedom doctrine.  How all these
>things interact within you (or Glenn or others), I am not aware, but they
>do. 

Hmm. My friends also seem to think that I am merely wanting to avoid pain.`
That is indeed part of it, but there is something else... the desire to
not interact is very strong. I actually want to become `shallow' in
my interaction with others. It is so much easier, you see, to just let
everyone flow around me, be an island unto myslef. It is simple, enjoyable,
and refreshing. But then I am acused of being distant and not supporting my 
friends when they need me. This is where the pain and discomfort come in.
I don't want to cause these people discomfort, but it is against my
desires to be open and emotionally sharing and supportive. 

Its odd. I think that my ideology is very simple and clear, but I will spell it
out for all to see.

1) Coercion, in any form, from any front, is wrong.
2) Freedom for all is the most important aspect of life.
3) Personal desires are to be put aside if they interfere with 1 or 2.

Therefore I will not allow my personal desires to come between
someone else's freedom. Even if they use violence or coercion to
take MY freedom away, they are `free' to do so. If everyone lived to
this ideal, then there would not be any need for `2' or `3' because coercion
is what keeps people from being free.

Orion.