I have agreed with the quotes I have put up so far, toady's quote I do not agree with, it intrigues me greatly and I agree with parts but not the whole idea. Today's quote is from Emma Goldman, a Lithuanian born Anarchist who immigrated to America in the 1880's.
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals."
Of course I disagree with the first part because religion, specifically Christianity, is a good thing.
But let's look at the last three statements. Liberation of the human body from dominion of property. I think I can agree with this after all we shouldn't be obsessed with our belongings.
Liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. I would pause and ponder this statement; on one hand I don't like government but on the other hand restraint of government is proper at times so maybe some government is necessary.
Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals. At first I'm not sure how to take this, I mean if we all just lived as different gangs who fight each other for resources that would lead to bad things. But then I think, what are nations but organizations who compete with each other for resources and protect their people? What is the difference between a gang and a government? Well I tend to think that a just government is one that derives its power from the people. A gang derives it power from the amount of force they control, a government that does the same is a totalitarian government and those are bad.
So back to the quote, the author is saying that a social order where people decide what groups to be a part of freely is best. I think I can agree with that, I mean our government derives its power from the people and the people have to agree to be part of this group. So I think I would agree with this part as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The difference between gangs and governments, in my opinion, is the difference between small groups and larger churches: You can get to know everyone in a gang, in a small community. In a government you might never meet or know the leader personally. The problem with Idealistic Anarchists (As opposed to Nihilistic ones or Psychopathic ones) is that they seem to assume that people are good and that without rules imposed by government they will do good. Thats why I stand by my view that government is necessary in a fallen world and why, despite the early church clearly having communistic tendencies (By which I mean the sharing of property amongst its members) we cannot have a system that functions that way on a large scale. Freedom, Mildly-Moderately moderated by moderators selected by the people being moderated, is the best possible system for a fallen world. If it could be guarenteed that no one would act in their own selfish interest, then we could talk about other systems realistically.
It's fine to say that government derives its power from the consent of the governed, but that's not really how it works, unless you think the voting franchise is sufficient to establish personal consent. If you're born in the USA you're expected to be an American, and you are granted the privileges of a citizen by birth, not by choice--same as with your family.
Post a Comment