| |
|
Gozer:
I have issues with the idea that freedom must be built on a framework
You misunderstand me. It's not that it must be built that way, it's that the very notion is built that way. We still haven't got a working definition of freedom. I suspect that it has to be bounded in order to exist: that my freedom is defined by the boundaries of yours, for example. 'Freedom' as it's being discussed here seems to be a concept arrived at either by contrast with a selection of oppressions, or as a thing in itself defined by a set of 'rights', these in themselves being circumscribed areas of personal space into which others may not assert their will.
Where and what is this Original (almost Platonic) Freedom, this a priori Freedom I'm so grossly assaulting? (A thing, incidentally, which strikes me as far more politically Right than I'd ever wish to be...)
society needs an infra- structure of 'common understanding' or ground rules to avoid collapsing, however I do not believe that this is the only way that society can exist
Again, I think language leads you astray. 'Society' is a set of ground (i.e. consituitive) rules - from the very subtle (Garfinkel's analysis of bodylanguage and speech patterns revealing the massive importance we put on obedience to basic rules of comportment in ascribing sanity, politeness, intelligence etc.) to the very obvious such as respect for the physical wellbeing of others. A group without these things is either a single gestalt entity or a collection of oblivious indidviduals devoid of communcation. It's not a society in any reasonable use of the word.
The removal of capatilism as the rudimetary foundation of society would drastically reduce the importance of bettering yourself by taking from others
How? And where do you get evidence for this idea? The conquering of scarcity would perhaps achieve that, but we're entering an era of increasing, not decreasing, scarcity. Capitalism, in its Reagan/Thatcherite incarnation, raises short-termism to an almost religious level, and (incidentally) denies the existence of society and its rules. But 'taking from others' predates capitalism as a basis for human relations by an enormous margin. Indeed, it's the basis of many primate relations in the wild. It's also included in Marx's model of revolution. I'm not saying Capitalism doesn't suck, just that this partcular critique is a little bare.
I'd argue your interpretation of the Sartre quote, by the way - my reading would be that there is no overriding authority, and we must therefore govern our own lives in the absence of a moral absolute...very existentialist, and very true, but hardly enough to bring him onto your team.
Laws dictate that authority exists, authority has to breed oppression to survive
Actually, laws need not require an authority elected from the populace - with a sufficient infrastructure, everyone in a given society could participate in law and judgement. Which is not to say such a setup wouldn't produce a tyranny of the majority.
As to authority breeding oppression, that's quite true - but does that mean you don't want bad things and vile ideas oppressed? Suppose, in your free society, a Hitler arises. Something must be done...but what? Not a problem for me, of course, I can oppress the hell out of him. There's an argument that such creatures arise as a consequence of capitalist or other oppressing structures...possibly. But it seems to me that at the point where a human being can go from birth to death without trauma of any kind, not only will this argument be irrelevant, but the human mind will be so altered as to be almost incomprehensible to anyone here.
But please, tell me more about an 'anarchist society'. How do you see it working?
(In case anyone's wondering, I think this dialogue is coming back around to prisons...) |
|
|
I'm not arguing that for society to work there is no need for an individuals respect, an 'understanding of the common good' as you put it, the issue is that there is no need to make these into laws, a ruling over others.