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, 13 Nov 1992 06:36:27 GMT

In article 1duknmINN7p4@uwm.edu, glenne@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Neuromancer ) writes:
>singram@eng.auburn.edu (Scott Ingram) writes:

>>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.

Yes. I relaized that when I started thinking about it. I think that fear,
primarily the fear of death (the greatest unknown), is what causes people to
hold on to a lot of their beliefs. Without the fear of death, one can rationally
view the world. With a fear of death, you immediately value yourself (or family,
or whatever) more than you value others. Once you realize that everyone 
MUST be equal, it becomes easier to grasp the concept.

>>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 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.

There is at least one other. My ex-roomate was the guy who got me thinking
about `our' form of anarchy. We were having a philosophical debate and a
point came up as to when it was ok to kill someone, and he said `never'.
This got us thinking `what about self-defense' and the debate quickly changed
to one over `rights' you have. I started thinking and within the next
month my philosophy had changed to accept this as what was correct, what was the
ONLY thing that could be correct. If you are not willing to give complete
freedom to everyone, then you can never have that same freedom yourself.
So now I live my life giving people their freedom, but not having my own.
Sometimes it sucks, but I know what I am doing is right.
 
>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.

Yes, with humanities current system of values, might makes right when
you try to hurt me. We let might make right in a `second case', where
if you use might against someone, that is wrong, so they are
free to use it against you. This is logical? No, but then again,
neither are humans.
 
>>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.

Thanks for snapping that back into perspective. I currently am `alienating 
myself' from my `friends'. Lets just say my social life is going to hell,
and I'm encouraging it. My friends have `gotten sick of my shit' and are
`tired of being patient with me'... as I have been very withdrawn these last
several days. But the thing is, I don't relate to any of them, so my 
withdrawal isn't bothering ME, but the fact that they are upset does.
 
>>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.

Yes. Last night was a prime example. I pissed off my best friend's SO by
being very `disrespectful' (I truly did not know that I had done this)
and we proceeded to have a 3-hour conversation as to WHY I was `abandoning'
my friends. They had noticed that I was no longer social at all, and was`
more self-absorbed than usual, paying them NO attention whatsoever.

We proceeded to get into a very vocal argument over what I was doing, and
how I was being a selfish bastard. The problem with the argument... I was 
agreeing that I was being a selfish bastard, was in fact encouraging
myself to be one. I need to get myself distanced from people right now,
as in more distanced than normal. They can't understand this. When
I tried to explain to the SO why I couldn't relate to people, I got 
a blank look. So then I said, OK, I'll try this... and proceeded
to explain anarchy, my morality, my philosophy, what was important to
me, what made me tick, and what I would do in certain situations.
After explaining all this, with as much caring and effort as I could muster,
I got a very awkward silence and then a half-hearted attempt at asking me why
I felt the way I did. The SO then proceeded to say `I'm sorry, I just
don't get it.'

Nothing like baring your soul and getting it stepped on. And the bad thing is 
it wasn't malicious. Just a blatant inability to understand me, even 
after my best effort. So then I had ammunition for why I was cutting myself off
(and reason to use it) and proceeded to slam these people, my `friends' with
why I distance myself. I open up to people, and it hurts to not be understood.
By cutting myself off I am protecting myself from that pain, which is something 
that I need right now. But they still didn't understand even that.

Oh well, I've rambled quite enough for now. This probably belongs on
alt.angst more than it belongs her.

Orion.