From: glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer )
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Explaining anarchy to your friends?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 22:09:58 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram) writes:
>I suppose I knew that all along. The whole election thing got some
>interesting discussions going though... and I of course was asked
>my personal choice for president. Rather than simply name the candidate
>I would have liked to see, I opened up this can of worms by telling
>everyone I was an anarchist... and then spent the next week trying
>to convince these people I wasn't waiting for an excuse to start
>rioting and looting.
 
I got:  What are ya nuts?  or  You don't really believe that, you
just think you believe that.  Some just laughed at me.
 
>This brings up a very interesting question (for me anyway): Why does
>the average human being want someone else to run their life for them?
>People are perfectly happy letting others make decisions for them, deciding
>what they can and can't do. I just don't understand it. It seems like
>everyone would eventually see government (the most obvious form of
>coercion in the world at this time) as something that might have been necessary
>once, but now has been outgrown by our level of civilization. But I guess that
>as long as there are people who will let others take care of them, there
>will be people who will be there to do the caretaking.
 
As I see it, there are two reasons, the first is fear.  Both fear of
the unknown, and a real fear of some nasty people that the government
protects them from.  The second is a dislike of thinking, i.e. tradition,
pure laziness.  I try to avoid either of these qualities in myself.
 
>Myself, of course. But that yearning for bliss comes along every once in a
>while.
 
The problem is, even if the yearning for bliss is so intense that it
overrides everything else, I find it impossible to try to forget
things that I have learned.  Blowing off what I have learned is an
option, however.
 
>This is something that disturbs me about `human nature'. It is very much a
>`gimme gimme gimme' view rather than a giving view. I am far from the
>most caring and giving person in the world, but I understand the need to let
>others have free will to do whatever they wish. And while I like to think
>that if someone said they were going to kill me, I would not use any force
>to stop them.  If I can be in that situation and say `Go ahead' then I
>would have attained a `true' anarchistic viewpoint.
 
I am not greatly giving person myself, especially when it comes to
direct giving.  I just don't feel a natural connection with other
people, and for the most part am limited to helping them indirectly
by not coercing them, and at this point, by just trying to be a part
of developing new technologies that I hope will help meet people's
physical needs.  Fortunately developing these technologies involve
doing something I really like.  Modeling the brain on computers for
scientific research.
 
I agree completely with the distaste for the selfishness and the
belief in non-resistance.  I don't know of anyone else besides yourself
who agrees with this stance.  There are basically only two logically
defensible approaches to life.  The first is might makes right/ Look
out for number one.  A few people will openly admit that this is their
approach to life.  The Marquis De Sade was one.  This is Pure selfishness.
 
The other position, is pure anarchy.  Pure selflessness in the name
of freedom.    Freedom makes right.  So far I know of two takers of
this position.  You and I.
 
Most people will take a middle of the road position.  They say, they
won't use might on you unless you mess with their freedom.  In my
view, they battle with monsters, (those in the first group) and
become monsters in the process.  In the end, while they say that
they don't believe that might makes right, they play by that
philosophy's rules.  I tend to look at such a position as an
essential element of a downward spiral which eventually destroys
all freedom.  You could view these middle of the roaders as
protecting us innocent lambs from the wolves in the first group.
You could also view the middle of the road position as enforcing
the wolves rules on all of us.  It's a matter of perspective.
 
>But it doesn't stop me from wanting to convert people
[to pure anarchy].
Me either.  Again we should realize this is pointless, and just
accept other people as they are, not what we want them to be.  But
this is going against our human need to relate to similar people.
So, while our desire achieves nothing, it probably is healthy.
 
>Alienation is common for me as well. But it is as much my fault as
>anyone else's.
ACK, don't use that word - "fault"!  Just because we are ourselves, and
other people are themselves, and the result is our emotional isolation,
(a result that we don't desire) it doesn't mean that there is any
fault to dole out.  These are _consequences_ of being true to ourselves,
but there is no fault.  I favor blame and fault about as little as I favor
formality, and the flu.
 
>I don't attempt to interract with people on a deep emotional level because
>they can't understand me on that deep emotional level. But over the years I
>have stopped trying... so finding someone who can relate to me will be
>difficult to say the least.
One of the worst things I think I have to deal with is the mistaken
theories as to why I am distance myself from other people.  People
usually tend to take my distance personally.  I guess if there are
people who ever really understand us, we aren't going to have do any
trying, thier understanding will come naturally, albeit rarely.
 
Glenn                                    glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy