Is it Anarchy worth promoting? Should we even support it anymore?

[philschneider]

OK before everyone rages here I am being serious and I am an anarchist like the rest of you.  I am going to simply be talking about strategy for the future.  I am not trying to argue that we should not be anarchists, and I am not trying to attack anarchy at its core.  Please keep try to keep your emotions in check I would like to just talk about strategy, and how effective the current anarchy campaign is presently.

 

I have noticed that because of brainwashing, lack of self knowledge, negatives representations of anarchy in media, normalization of violence, etc, anarchy is an incredibly tough sell to anyone.  Converting a meaningful portion of the population to anarchy is a daunting and impossible task.  Because of this should we spend our time working on the near impossible?  Supporting and teaching statists to instead support voluntary relationships, oppose violence, and leave politics as much out of it as you can.  Don't tell them you are a anarchist.  Don't even hint at it.  And don't even try to suggest they change their political beliefs.  Just attack them at the most basic level and help get them to support the fundamentals and the rest will follow in time.  I would argue that if you can help push the population towards the basics fundamentals of anarchy without telling them so they will be primed for future conversion.

 

Another problem with being an anarchist is that once you claim to be one you put a target on your back.  Your opinions and arguments are automatically less effective.  People do not like anarchy and their defenses go up instantly.  If you never trigger that first set of defenses then you have a higher chance to get them to stop hitting their kids, change their relationships, etc.  I would suggest simply stating you are pro nonviolence, and have no political ties.

 

In conclusion I propose that it would be more effective in the short and long run to abandon anarchy and just promote nonviolence.  If you start with nonviolence and people start applying it to all aspects of their lives the ending effect will be at very least a bunch of statist libertarians which would be a great start.  I would even suggest not saying you are an anarchist, libertarian, or any political view at all.  I think if you stay as neutral as possible and attack the fundamental flaws in society you will see a faster more effective change.

 

What do you think of my theory?  Is it spot on?  Do you completely disagree?  Do you have an alternative plan?  Do you think anarchy is spreading quickly enough?  Do you think anarchy will ever leave the fringe with our current strategy?

[Pepin]

I agree, though it is kind of like arguing against god without mentioning the word god or atheism. This is the strategy I take, and it can be frustrating to others as they really want you to define yourself as a word. I enjoy it because it puts the emphasis on the arguments.

 

I consider the path to a peaceful society, an anarchic society to be one that initially involves peaceful parenting. Though the politics are of interest, I doubt that they can be tackled so early on.

[luminescent]

I agree too with the basic idea.  I wouldn't use the word non-violent however, because that already has baggage (for lack of a better word) attached to it too.  I would try to talk about it only using plain language.  That's pretty much what I do with most things.  If you can tell where I got a concept from, then I'm not doing my job well.It also lets me know when I actually understand a concept rather than I just think that I do.  If I can put it into my own words, I understand it, if I keep saying "capitalism" or whatever, I need to check myself to be sure that my meaning isn't going off target, due to my definition being different from the other person's definition.  Also, it's good to make others define their terms, too.  So, tell the person that you're talking with to that they can't use those terms either.  In other words, ban anarchy.Wait, I don't think that means what I meant it to mean, really... 

[SamuelS]

ban anarchy.

I lol'd

[JSDev]

Your proposal is uncontroversial. I hate labels anyway.

[philschneider]

To tell the truth I made the title overly attention grabbing. I was hoping for disagreement, but there does not seem to be any.

[RyanT]

OK before everyone rages here I am being serious and I am an anarchist like the rest of you. I am going to simply be talking about strategy for the future. I am not trying to argue that we should not be anarchists, and I am not trying to attack anarchy at its core. Please keep try to keep your emotions in check I would like to just talk about strategy, and how effective the current anarchy campaign is presently.

OK before you start trying to win people over to an idea, about how to win people over to an ideait might be a good idea not to first insult them?'Look I think you're all a bunch of range filled emotionally unstable dogmatists ....but hear me out'but yeah I don't go around introducing myself as an anarchist, because for most people it conjures up images of little middle class 'social justice warriors' who like to run around dressing in black smashing windows, and indeed 90% of the people I meet in my everyday life...I don't even bother talking politics with, it'd be a totally futile exercise. but even within that 10% of people who're quite open to radical stuff, up to and including the idea of a stateless society...I'm still very cautious bringing up voluntary relationships in their personal lives....that's where you really start hitting raw nerves.I mean of all the Anarchist thinkers out there today, who gets the most shit and abuse? Stefan....because he dares to talk about the family.

[Pepin]

To tell the truth I made the title overly attention grabbing. I was hoping for disagreement, but there does not seem to be any.

 

I can play the part of devil's advocate.

 

Though the method of making arguments without reference to their conceptual container, ie: "anarchism"; "atheism"; ect would work in a mentally functioning society, the current state of critical thought among the vast number of individuals in society is insufficient to have any clear effect. It is not that the language of reason is ineffective, rather that language is ineffective when spoken to those who have never learnt it.

 

This may sound pessimistic, but it is more congruent with the problem presented, which is that people respond to words and their associations as opposed to concepts and their meaning. Though the reasons for this are of course linked to schooling and parenting, what we tend to forget that this pattern is simply being exploited as opposed to being created.

 

When human language first came into being, it dealt primarily with percepts and entities. For a human who had never experienced fire, it was most advantageous for another human to refer to the percept through pointing, and then to scream in agony. As the development of language become more advanced, the pointing in conjunction with a verbal sound could then be used to refer to the entity: the fire, without the fire. As more and more was conceptualized, more and more associations could be made, which would aid drastically in human survival.

 

I am not claiming that this is an accurate portrayal of language ought to be, but rather that the associative based language is more in line with how humans evolved. Language was simple not complex enough to allow for any sort of argument.

 

Though I am all for argumentation for those who speak the language of reason, I hope it is clear that the strategies that governments; media cooperations; and parents use, are effective for a reason. Peaceful parenting will have an impact on the receptiveness of openness to argumentation in the future, but the current state of society really only allows for association based reasoning and pragmatism.

 

Referring to debt as "the selling of the unborn" will be far more effective than a highly accurate argument which implies it. Simple associative memes such as "taxation is theft" have far more transmission power than a syllogism proving taxation is theft. Calling Obama and Bush mass murderers is far more effective than pointing out all of the people they ordered hits on. Only a very small minority of people will respond better to an argument than a catchphrase.

 

Again, this isn't a method I like as I'd love to take the reason and evidence approach, but if we are to truly look at our audience and ask how others are winning them over, we have to ask: will the opposite strategy really work?

 

/devil's advocate

[PatrickC]

I barely talk about anarchy with anyone outside of my friends and family. The only sphere I'm ever likely to influence, let alone the whole of society. The failure to convince them had very little to do with my use of the word anarchy.

[TheRobin]

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

[Jonathan Walliser]

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

 

exactly!! Most people do not like considering uncomfortable things, they like their routine, even if they hate their jobs they do not want to go as far as question the entire system. I think part of it has to do with their low IQ, they do not let anything threaten their cherished belief system or worldview, so when they hear "conspiracy theorist" or "Anarchist" they immediately check out and cannot give any more intelligent conversation. Its a rare person that will engage you in a good chat and be open minded about it all. With most people I have to give them a quick education on what anarchism actually is, and after that I explain the problems with state run society and give them examples of societies that are not state run, mostly indigenous cultures which have existed for tens of thousands of years without any problem, as well as more modern examples.

[TheAuger]

A very cogent argument. I think the term "anarchy" has more than a few image problems, clearly, and I think Stef has addressed some of those issues.

 

There is a problem with 'anarchy' being used interchangeably with 'chaos' and 'disorder'. This causes two problems, IMO -- it keeps people in a fog of false illusion about what we actually stand for and they're less likely to investigate anarchy. But also there are the 'black bloc' folks who are attracted to anarchy because they want to act out childish tantrums and think that wanton property crimes are perfectly okay and don't give a shit about NAP. There is a 'chicness' about anarchy because its seen as dangerous and rebellious. I think people who don't accept NAP but nonetheless use the same term to describe themselves is a more dangerous effect of the misuse of anarchy than failing to attract the right people because they also have a false perception of what it means to be an anarchist.

[Brentb]

I use the term "anarchy" because I want it to be better represented and become normalized.

[Pepin]

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

I would disagree because of the connotations and other supporting theories of anarchism may conjure up a false representation of the concept you wish to put forward. Many people first hear of anarchism in regard to communist theory, and upon presenting the term they may have many preconceptions which will shape the conversation. It is quite the same with the term libertarian in the people will assume what it means through common libertarian political positions, as opposed to a principled approach. It is of course the same with terms such as feminism, platonism, atheism, and so on.I'm the long run of the conversation, it will likely work out with the curious, but if you are to use a term, it is vital to define it to save the headache.I have no issue with the preconceptions and loose associations people have, as there its limited time to really learn about intellectual theories, and many people including myself are likely to have very hazy and incorrect understandings of a concept despite the effort in learning about them. It can be difficult to abstract the commonality between many different claims, and having made assumptions based on your current understanding is understandable.Another issue its not setting of a person's flight or flight response. Words have a far greater power to do this than arguments with most people. There are stories of biologists talking to people on planes and buses about evolution without without mentioning the term evolution, the person will be amazed, and they will only be put off in the discussion until the term comes up. I have had many experiences like this myself in political discussions.I do agree with you if you are decent at communication, but most people aren't. I tend to be pretty disappointed when I hear people I agree with present their ideas. This forum in general tends to different, but unless you are good at rhetoric and presenting a concept and instances of that concept in an easy to comprehend manner, terms can be far more detrimental than not.

[philschneider]

OK before you start trying to win people over to an idea, about how to win people over to an ideait might be a good idea not to first insult them?'Look I think you're all a bunch of range filled emotionally unstable dogmatists ....but hear me out'

I am glad you brought this up.  I hear you, and I see how it can be an insulting thing to say.  I will try to avoid doing this in the future.  To explain myself I have only been here a little over a week and my experience so far makes me feel that 1/3-1/2 of the people at FDR are like this at least some of the time.  My opinion is likely skewed because I am new here, and because of the emotional nature of my first major post.  Either way this is almost exactly how I feel about FDR at the moment.  You can damn me for it if you want, but I am hoping my experience so far is not the true face of FDR and my opinion will change quickly.

 

Instead of being insulted you could have also looked at it this way.  I am new and don't know what to think about the new community I joined.  I am use to people online being unempathetic, reactionary, and emotional just like we all are out side of FDR.  Because of this I am just trying to prepare viewers to a potentially inflammatory idea.  The intro was meant to diminish emotional reactions not insult peoples intelligence.  Obviously it was not needed, but I thought I would be better safe then sorry.  Everyone no matter how smart can be hurt and get emotionally defensive if their beliefs are being attacked.  I was trying to take this into account and prepare people for what could have ended up being very reactionary responses towards me.  While I may have been unintentionally insulting, you also chose to take what I said as insulting instead of being empathetic towards me.  I could say that I am insulted that you assumed that my intentions were insulting.  Why would you automatically think that I meant to post to a forum like this to insult people?  Of course I don't think this about you, but I am just exaggerating to show that any comment can be taken negatively or positively depending on the viewer.  Four people commented before you and they at least did not think I was being insulting.  As a matter of fact JSDEV noticed that I just thought I was saying something controversial.  It is better to question people on their intentions then to make wrong assumptions.  I did not mean by this reply to minimize your feeling or further upset you, but to let you in on my own point of view and feelings.  I think this topic may make an interesting thread.  Please let me know if you would like to talk about this more I will start one up.

 

 

I can play the part of devil's advocate.

 

Though the method of making arguments without reference to their conceptual container, ie: "anarchism"; "atheism"; ect would work in a mentally functioning society, the current state of critical thought among the vast number of individuals in society is insufficient to have any clear effect. It is not that the language of reason is ineffective, rather that language is ineffective when spoken to those who have never learnt it.

 

This may sound pessimistic, but it is more congruent with the problem presented, which is that people respond to words and their associations as opposed to concepts and their meaning. Though the reasons for this are of course linked to schooling and parenting, what we tend to forget that this pattern is simply being exploited as opposed to being created.

 

When human language first came into being, it dealt primarily with percepts and entities. For a human who had never experienced fire, it was most advantageous for another human to refer to the percept through pointing, and then to scream in agony. As the development of language become more advanced, the pointing in conjunction with a verbal sound could then be used to refer to the entity: the fire, without the fire. As more and more was conceptualized, more and more associations could be made, which would aid drastically in human survival.

 

I am not claiming that this is an accurate portrayal of language ought to be, but rather that the associative based language is more in line with how humans evolved. Language was simple not complex enough to allow for any sort of argument.

 

Though I am all for argumentation for those who speak the language of reason, I hope it is clear that the strategies that governments; media cooperations; and parents use, are effective for a reason. Peaceful parenting will have an impact on the receptiveness of openness to argumentation in the future, but the current state of society really only allows for association based reasoning and pragmatism.

 

Referring to debt as "the selling of the unborn" will be far more effective than a highly accurate argument which implies it. Simple associative memes such as "taxation is theft" have far more transmission power than a syllogism proving taxation is theft. Calling Obama and Bush mass murderers is far more effective than pointing out all of the people they ordered hits on. Only a very small minority of people will respond better to an argument than a catchphrase.

 

Again, this isn't a method I like as I'd love to take the reason and evidence approach, but if we are to truly look at our audience and ask how others are winning them over, we have to ask: will the opposite strategy really work?

 

/devil's advocate

So I am going to try to summarize this argument to break it down and see if I am fully understanding you.  Please correct me if I get something wrong.

 

You are arguing that people in society are flawed, damaged, and illogical.  To argue without anarchy would be like emulating what other groups do to convert people now.  Pop phrases, and emotional biting quotes are the most effective way to convince people and get their attention, but it is not the right thing to do.  We should not be like everyone else.  We should take the high ground even if it slows the rate of growth.  We should be a good example for the world and for future generations.

 

If I have interpreted your comment right this is quite an interesting idea.  I guess it would come down to if logic, facts, and the moral high ground more important when peoples lives are literally on the line?  You could also argue if you don't fix the basic problem of people being illogical then you will just have brainless followers being anarchists, and will that really change the world in a permanent way?

I use the term "anarchy" because I want it to be better represented and become normalized.

If we start now by being good examples of what anarchy will be, and try to break the negative stereotypes we could get some where.  I think this is a good idea and argument.

[RyanT]

I am glad you brought this up.  I hear you, and I see how it can be an insulting thing to say.  I will try to avoid doing this in the future.  To explain myself I have only been here a little over a week and my experience so far makes me feel that 1/3-1/2 of the people at FDR are like this at least some of the time.  My opinion is likely skewed because I am new here, and because of the emotional nature of my first major post.  Either way this is almost exactly how I feel about FDR at the moment.  You can damn me for it if you want, but I am hoping my experience so far is not the true face of FDR and my opinion will change quickly.

 

Instead of being insulted you could have also looked at it this way.  I am new and don't know what to think about the new community I joined.  I am use to people online being unempathetic, reactionary, and emotional just like we all are out side of FDR.  Because of this I am just trying to prepare viewers to a potentially inflammatory idea.  The intro was meant to diminish emotional reactions not insult peoples intelligence.  Obviously it was not needed, but I thought I would be better safe then sorry.  Everyone no matter how smart can be hurt and get emotionally defensive if their beliefs are being attacked.  I was trying to take this into account and prepare people for what could have ended up being very reactionary responses towards me.  While I may have been unintentionally insulting, you also chose to take what I said as insulting instead of being empathetic towards me.  I could say that I am insulted that you assumed that my intentions were insulting.  Why would you automatically think that I meant to post to a forum like this to insult people?  Of course I don't think this about you, but I am just exaggerating to show that any comment can be taken negatively or positively depending on the viewer.  Four people commented before you and they at least did not think I was being insulting.  As a matter of fact JSDEV noticed that I just thought I was saying something controversial.  It is better to question people on their intentions then to make wrong assumptions.  I did not mean by this reply to minimize your feeling or further upset you, but to let you in on my own point of view and feelings.  I think this topic may make an interesting thread.  Please let me know if you would like to talk about this more I will start one up.

 

.....You're still doing it.

[philschneider]

.....You're still doing it.

Please explain how?  I do not understand.  I do see how my post could have been offensive, but that seems to be where my understanding drops off.

[luminescent]

.....You're still doing it.

 

Please explain how?  I do not understand.  I do see how my post could have been offensive, but that seems to be where my understanding drops off.

 

I have to say, I don't understand either.  Why not tell philschneider what he's doing wrong?  (In other words, "You're still doing it" is not an argument.)

[RyanT]

I have to say, I don't understand either.  Why not tell philschneider what he's doing wrong?  (In other words, "You're still doing it" is not an argument.)

 

Well I feel his interactions so far in this thread have been really manipulative,

Firstly with his insulting tone in the original post and when I pointed it out,

he just doubled down with this one.

 

At which point I didn’t see much point further engaging.  

[luminescent]

At which point I didn’t see much point further engaging.  

 

Are you aware that by posting something like that in response, you *are* further engaging?  

 

(Also, "really manipulative" is not an argument, and doubled down is not an argument.)

 

 

------------edited to add:

Why did someone give me a negative point for that?  Everything I said was true.I'm not interested in defending the OP or defending some part of the topic with this post.  What I don't understand is why baiting comments are used as often as they are on this message board.  I thought that reason, evidence, and logic was supposed to be paramount.  Also empathy and self-knowledge.  Is there a valid use for these type of comments?  I am open to the idea that with certain people "that's just how you have to handle them," or something like that, but I need someone to make the case for me.(I don't mean just you, RyanT.  I see that you're fairly new to the board, so who I mostly mean is the people who have been here the longest, since they set the tone for the board.)

 

 

------------edited to add:

And now I have two negative points, and yet no one will address my concerns. 

 

I do indeed find the "feedback" to be helpful information.

[Phuein]

...before everyone rages here...

 

RyanT is spot on, and I suspect that this is the real topic of the thread; and not "anarchy", in its' popular use.

 

Phil, you're generalizing "people" into a category that is not useful. There is no "they" that attack you. There's only specific people, by age, location, occupation, or otherwise, who have a specific mental ability, according to their natural intelligence and training.

 

What's worse, you're comparing the FDR community to them. You're treating us, as if we would behave the same, to you, as non-thinkers would; as abusers would. That's equal to falsely accusing me of being an abuser!

 

Now...

 

Marketing doesn't get people to do anything good. That's why institutions that preach "good", get loads of money, and then do a lot of bad. Because being good is a private and personal issue. There's no one lifestyle or code that everyone would follow, and then an entire society would turn good. Each person has their own issues to deal with, which make a strict code unhelpful.

 

Most people are stupid and disinterested, in a cowardly manner. They will simply follow the norm. It is a waste of time and effort, to even consider arguing with them. It is your responsibility to identify those people around you, who would benefit from your wisdom, and then personally identify their vocabulary and perspective, to communicate yourself better.

 

It's a personal issue. The only generalization about it is, when people feel sympathy to those personal examples, and get inspired to mimic their solutions. Which is what this community is all about.

[luminescent]

[some insightful stuff]

 

Now...

 

[some more insightful stuff]

 

I found your analysis more interesting than quick barbs -- thank you for spending the time.

[cynicist]

If someone can't get past a label to understand the ideas, why would I spend time trying to convince them?

[thelizardking52]

To me this seems dishonest. If you can't accept yourself, openly and truthfully, about your views because you fear backlash or disgust, then maybe you aren't 100% convicted to your own beliefs.  I sense it may be a fear of social rejection that prompts this and I do understand that, it is natural. Yet, I think it works counter to as you put it " converting" a significant proportion of the population.  

 

I say why not just change people's ideas on some issues and win the battles we can and not focus on converting people. I don't like that term "converting" either, but I get what you mean. 

 

You don't have to advertise to the entire world when it's not being asked, nor do you have to share with abusive people who will try to harm you. Protect yourself when you have to.However, I see no harm in being honest and forthright when in the right environment and right people. I think we have to be mindful of our work environments and how our ideas can affect our income. Besides that, I say, for personal relationships, don't hide anything from anyone.  Again, there is no shame in not advertising, but don't hold back words you wish to speak for fear of social rejection.  Be yourself, or tighten the handcuffs you are wearing. 

 

I also think it's not effective.  It seems akin to promoting gay rights while in the closet. It's disingenious.If we want to promote ourselves, our views, but not be honest about them from the beginning, then we are undermining our credibility. That's not the way to start a revolution of ideas.  

 

I don't write this as an attack on you. I write this as genuine criticism and why I beilieve we should actively promote anarchy and actively discredit the state when the opportunity presents itself. Don't waste your time where people will not listen, but do, scream the evils of government. Do present the peacefulness of anarchy and nonviolence to all that you feel would listen and can't harm you physically or financially. If they would harm you emotionally, then they aren't worth your emotional investment. 

[jpahmad]

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

 

Wait, shouldn't it be easier to manipulate unintelligent people? 

[TheRobin]

Wait, shouldn't it be easier to manipulate unintelligent people? 

Ha, maybe, but only if there's no prejudice in their heads already in my opinion. Also I found that those who are manipulated into a belief can just as easily be manipulated out of one. It's even more about social comfort than truth woth those people, so they might completely agree with you one day and the next day they read somthing in the newspaper and change their beliefs again.But most of the time, when hearing something out of the norm, that they know gets rejected by most other people, they just attack, ridicule, evade in my experience.Also, just to be clear, with "intelligent" I mean the willingness and/or ability to judge an argument on its own and be open to correction by facts and reason.

[Abolitionist]

I have two ideas.Fight the good fight.orGive up.Now the reason I feel like giving up is because I don't know if everyone is capable of anarchism. I understand that me and many others are going to be able to live like that and its best. However the sheep can't. And this is why we have government and violence. Reading Nietzsche will really give you the perspective you need (lol perspectivism and lol pick any perspective you want) about the herd and how they can't think. I think this is a very real reality of realness.The reason we have conformity (comfortity) is the reason we have obesity. Its an outdated script that is running in the bell curve that hasn't adjusted to modernity. This is also the same problems with feminism and trying to change women's nature to see men as human beings and pick the men who are good fathers rather than the alpha types.So all in all we have a self reinforcing system that can't really be changed. Unless we get eugenics and start mass producing women who pick the right men I don't see it happening. With the state, the state just encourages women to pick the wrong men so society will only become more dysfunctional and violent.And even if you want to say NAWALT and some women get better with self knowledge, the amount that do is so small it doesn't matter, and the entire system is set out to reward women for doing evil. Its not just spanking, its the selection of guys, etc.Basically we need to alter evolution to accelerate or skip forward to modern times, or find a way to get everyone to have self knowledge. Reducing child abuse increases IQ and prevents dysfunction, destroying feminism will make women behave properly due to social repercussions, and destroying the state will make women have to behave properly due to financial and social repercussions. Right now women are absolutely out of control. Imagine if we let men do whatever they want? Would be a really horrible world right? Well that's what we are letting women do right now and its having massive consequences. But since we irrationality treat women better b/c of the biologically outdated value of the womb, we are acting under false pretenses.I actually think the best solution would be to develop a drug to suppress the male sex drive or eliminate it temporarily like a reverse viagra. This would force women to actually be decent I think. Women just have way too much power right now and its completely undeserved. Evolution is too slow.First it was likeOld environment -> Old Female Behavior -> Old Male Behavior = AdaptiveThen it was like (current day)New environment -> Old Female Behavior -> Old Male Behavior = MaladaptiveNow its likeNew environment -> New Female Behavior -> New Male Behavior = AdaptiveYou can always control men. Because you can kill men and throw them in jail where they can't have sex, but the womb is so important that you can never stop female bad behavior, or very little. Even with an artificial womb men's biology wouldn't change nor would women's (at least not for a long long time).Anyway this is why I think anarchy isn't possible and how all the ideas interrelate. I hope I don't have to say "this isn't an attack on women" or that type of stuff on this forum, but as this is my 2nd post I will say it. Its not women's fault they are like this, but if we want a better world for everyone including women and especially kids, this is what I see needing to happen. It really is like Ubermesnch.... from ape to man, and from man to Ubermensch

 

I teach you the Overman! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind? What is the ape to a man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just so shall a man be to the Overman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

 

-Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

[J. D. Stembal]

If someone can't get past a label to understand the ideas, why would I spend time trying to convince them?

 

I'm with Rob here, and I'll tell you why.

 

If you are constantly pulling your punches with people and pussy-footing around the real topic (ending state power to achieve a non-violent society) then you're never going to get any results in your life. You will still have a horde of statists in your life that think you're a special, but delusional, snowflake. Live by your beliefs and start showing the power of voluntarism to the world, and see who joins you in the movement. You might as well get it over with and tell everyone you meet that you believe in a peaceful voluntary society, which is essentially anarchy. Tell them that you're an athiest, and see what happens. If you aren't invited to the next barbeque party, you'll know why. The people who are genuinely curious about your ideas will want to talk to you without feeling threatened. Why should they feel threatened? It's not like you are kidnapping, mugging, or raping them. Tell them why you are into a peaceful voluntary society where everyone is allowed to choose how they want to live, and that this society is called anarchy. You will either receive indignant stares, sarcastic muttering or people asking you about your ideas.

[AustinJames]

I often use the word "voluntarism" because it seems more descriptive of my ideals than "anarchism."  Anarchism describes what I don't want (rulers), and voluntarism describes what I do want (strictly voluntary transactions).  That way, I also circumvent the infamous "what about the roads!" type arguments and hone right in on the morality of the proposition.

 

Instead of starting with, "government needs to be abolished," and reasoning backwards from there, I use voluntarism as a first principle from which to reason.  This method is very efficient in determining whether the individual you are debating can think rationally, and whether or not they advocate aggression.

[GRosado]

Instead of labeling ourselves as Anarchists we could use either Voluntarists, Agorists or Autarchists.

[cynicist]

Instead of labeling ourselves as Anarchists we could use either Voluntarists, Agorists or Autarchists.

 

Sure but then we wouldn't get the wide-eyed stares. I like those. 

[Bedouin]

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

Yes! Quite right. Scoping out a person's level of openness to new ideas, perhaps by easing them into the fact that you are an anarchist, can be effective in choosing your engagements.

 

If you 'sweet talk' them with the basic logic of the non-aggression principle and get them to agree that force is bad then it can be quite easy to go from there, because it makes it quite clear to everyone in the conversation that as soon as they support government they've fallen into an obvious contradiction.

 

I used to start with the whole '200 million people dead in 20th century' and 'government programmes are inefficient' but it often failed me and still does. Basic moral arguments are a lot more digestible, and I think due to their intriguingly ability to cure societies' ills in and of themselves - and in such a rudimentary way - give people more cause to listen to what you're saying and not just reject it outright. Just gotta avoid those buzzwords, 'libertarian', 'anarchist' etc. unless you're sure the person isn't a close-minded dork.

[luxfelix]

I often use the word "voluntarism" because it seems more descriptive of my ideals than "anarchism."  Anarchism describes what I don't want (rulers), and voluntarism describes what I do want (strictly voluntary transactions).  That way, I also circumvent the infamous "what about the roads!" type arguments and hone right in on the morality of the proposition.

 

Instead of starting with, "government needs to be abolished," and reasoning backwards from there, I use voluntarism as a first principle from which to reason.  This method is very efficient in determining whether the individual you are debating can think rationally, and whether or not they advocate aggression.

 

I agree.

 

This reminds me of a quote by Marianne Williamson: "Creating the world we want is a much more subtle but more powerful mode of operation than destroying the one we don't want."

 

It's encouraging when someone comes up to me and asks (something along the lines of) what it is that I do that is working (even if it doesn't always feel that way from my perspective). It is also a much more efficient use of my time as they come to the discussion already receptive. 

 

It's an attractive posture, not of aloofness, but of preoccupation.

 

(Like when I'm playing piano in a practice room and someone comes in to ask me about the music... in our case, the music we play is the message of voluntarism.) 

 

Put another way: When we burn brightly in our own endeavors, we become guiding lights. Though sometimes hard to see through the light pollution of the state, we nonetheless cast a constellation's glow.

[GRosado]

Sure but then we wouldn't get the wide-eyed stares. I like those.

Lmao yes we wouldnt get those but at least we will get the screams of chaos.

[NameName]

I often use the word "voluntarism" 

 

I too, have always used "Voluntarism", it makes a huge difference for first impressions of explaining this ideology.

 

Voluntarism sounds like we are going to do good things, while anarchy sounds like we are going to just not do bad things.

 

Just my two cents.