Can I really call myself an anarchist if I would use force to exert my own beliefs?

[Brewer]

I
think that so many problems arise when societies assign different privileges to
different classes of people.  There is both a disconnect of responsibility
and power when this happens, BUT I can't help imagining the possibilities of
using the insane power of government to influence people towards a more free
society. As self-defeating as that power might be, if I were a "dictator"
and could hinder the inequality of wealth and power in a given area or even the
world; I think I would use force to try to push society towards freedom and
equality.  Can anyone honestly say that if they were to control such power
that they would simply seek to destroy their own power or give it up? This is a
question that plagues me, is the invention of classes and separate powers and
rights too irresistible to be overcome? I find the "theory" of a “free”
society to be utopian, and unrealistic as whoever could hold such power
would be unable to relinquish it. I understand and agree with the moral arguments
that such powers are immoral, but lack the conviction to say I would not use
them for myself.  For instance: If I
could use government power to discredit religious authorities and push more
people towards atheistism, I would wholeheartedly do so, I would likewise use government
power to remove children from parents that had religious faiths and used
physical or emotional force against their children.

All
this said, I do acknowledge that the force used against me has been detrimental
against even desirable traits (hygiene, motivation, charity) and can at least
understand that force does achieve the opposite of its stated goal in some
cases, but the overall temptation of power is still too much for me to truly reject
it on a philosophical basis.

 

I
welcome your thoughts and opinions.

"Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” ~ Oscar Wilde.

[JKPgamer]

I
think that so many problems arise when societies assign different privileges to
different classes of people.

If you believe problems arise from having different classes, how can you say that YOU, being the ultimate dictator, can strive for equality when you are above everyone else?

I think I would use force to try to push society towards freedom and
equality.

This is a contradictory statement.  "I'm going to force people to be equal while not being equal to them myself."

I understand and agree with the moral arguments
that such powers are immoral

Not just immoral...They've been proven throught human history to NOT work.  I mean we see countless examples that force will achieve the opposite of what your stated goal.  The war on drugs has only increased drug usage.

I would likewise use government
power to remove children from parents that had religious faiths and used
physical or emotional force against their children.

Child protective services is supposed to take kids out of abused households...is it working?  How would your system work at getting better results?

Can anyone honestly say that if they were to control such power
that they would simply seek to destroy their own power or give it up?

Wholeheartedly yes I would give up that kind of power in a heartbeat...The ends never justify the means...Actions are what is judged not the intent behind it.  If we judged based on intent then Hitler was a saint because he was only doing what he thought would achieve his ends.

 

With all that being said I really do understand where you're coming from.  I, maybe 7 or 8 years ago thought along the same lines, but since I discovered UPB and have come to understand that there is an objective morality...any form of the initiation of the use of force will be wrong ALWAYS.  So yes I can honestly say if someone handed me the reigns of a government I would reject it immediately because I will not tarnish my own morality for the sake of "maybe doing good for a few years" and sacrificing every principle I know know to be true.  Because empirically we know it'll come crashing down.

[TheRobin]

I don't think you can really "push people" anywhere. I mean, when has that ever truly worked? People just get resentful at whoever is doing the pushing and then naturally at the reason provided FOR the pushing, so it'd rather be counterproductive imo.

[Gaurav251]

 

I don't think you can really "push people" anywhere. I mean, when has that ever truly worked? People just get resentful at whoever is doing the pushing and then naturally at the reason provided FOR the pushing, so it'd rather be counterproductive imo.

 

 

This is true for me, I have never in my own personal life seen some one succeed at forcing their views upon some one else ever have the person adopt those views, atleast I havent seen it happen within a few conversations atleast.

[Pepin]

I think that so many problems arise when societies assign different privileges to different classes of people.  There is both a disconnect of responsibility and power when this happens,

Basing your argument on an "I think" and stating a consequence as if the "I think" is true does not work as an argument. What you think does not matter, but what you can prove to be true does.

BUT I can't help imagining the possibilities of using the insane power of government to influence people towards a more free society. As self-defeating as that power might be, if I were a "dictator" and could hinder the inequality of wealth and power in a given area or even the world; I think I would use force to try to push society towards freedom and equality.

First, this is contemplating a situation that does not make sense. If the government is a group of people that claim a monopoly of force in a geographical area, then by definition, you cannot spread the message of peaceful and free society. This is much like how it would make little sense to become the pope to push Catholicism more towards Atheism.

Second, to say you would use force to push society towards freedom is contradictory. It is like saying that you are going to use poison to improve a person's health.

Third, to use force on a society and to really believe it is for the best is to believe that you really know what is best. Yet, if you are to claim that voluntary interaction is better than forced ones, then you would be acting in a way which you believe is not best for society. To go further, to claim knowledge of that you know what is best for people, is to claim knowledge that you do not have. 

Can anyone honestly say that if they were to control such power that they would simply seek to destroy their own power or give it up? This is a question that plagues me, is the invention of classes and separate powers and rights too irresistible to be overcome?

No, not if you act on principal. For instance, I would not accept partial ownership over any amount of people as I am opposed to all forms of slavery, I am opposed to initiating force, I do not know what is best for these people, and because taking ownership over people would be detrimental to my humanity.

I find the "theory" of a “free” society to be utopian, and unrealistic as whoever could hold such power would be unable to relinquish it.

This is to assume that a free society is dependent upon the ruler relinquishing their power. If a voluntary society cannot be achieved through the state, then a voluntary society cannot be dependent upon the state. To imagine it this way, when approaching a voluntary society, the acts of the rulers will be called by their proper name: indoctrination through public school, murder through physical and economic wars, theft through taxation, caging through prisons, enslavement of the unborn through national debt, and so on.

I understand and agree with the moral arguments that such powers are immoral, but lack the conviction to say I would not use them for myself.

If power corrupts, then power would corrupt you, more so if that power was over corruption.

For instance: If I could use government power to discredit religious authorities and push more people towards atheistism

I am a little confused to as what you mean here and how it relates to the power of the government. Can you give some specifics as to your actions? Like would you just use rational argument? Would you put people into reeducation camps? Would there be repercussions to believing in a deity?

I would likewise use government power to remove children from parents that had religious faiths and used physical or emotional force against their children.

If lying is immoral, and if a man comes to your house, says that they are going to shoot your wife, and then asks where she is, is it wrong to lie to the man? Well, the question of right and wrong don't really apply to this situation. It is kind of like being in nature among bears and wolves.

Is it wrong to use government services to report a rape that is occurring next door? Right and wrong do not apply, especially in scenarios in which you are forced to use an agency that claims a monopoly of force over the geographical area.

It is not wrong to stop physical and psychological abuse of children through the means of force. Is it wrong to use government services to stop this? Again, the concept loses meaning, especially if you are dictator who owns human capital.

All this said, I do acknowledge that the force used against me has been detrimental against even desirable traits (hygiene, motivation, charity) and can at least understand that force does achieve the opposite of its stated goal in some cases, but the overall temptation of power is still too much for me to truly reject it on a philosophical basis.

Hopefully I've helped, though to be honest, I am not really sure what hurdle you are having. Is it the idea that force is capable of having a positive result? Or is it that you would use force if given power?