There is no question about voluntary submission, the question is regarding secession from said order without having to vacate arbitrary geographical bounderies.
You said "voluntary and involuntary." It seems to me this includes people who have no desire to vacate said geographical boundaries and who also choose to abide by arbitrary legal parameters.
So in other words, you see only see positive action and human advances within the narrow field of political action.
Yours is the narrowest field: you're either anarchist, or you're statist.
I fail to see the relevance of freedom or subjugation only being understood when contrasted. They still are what they are. You are either able to act as the complete owner of yourself or you are not. A person's philosophical understanding of the situation is irrelevant to it's reality.
Your flaw is in believing there to be some vague, abstract ideal of freedom. Our valorization is based on a misleading notion our origins are somehow pure, or more pristine than our current condition; and that freedom is a basic unit of this purity. Absolute freedom is a fiction; anarchistic freedom, in my opinion, is not a lasting or worthwhile freedom.
The beneficial illusion angle is dangerous, since it is this illusion that every government since the Bernays/Goebbels propoganda revolution has sought to enhance, parallel to freedom and produce being removed.
It isn't a beneficial illusion, and I haven't been arguing that. I think people should be aware of the illusion they live under. I just don't think it's an excuse for anarchy.
I would argue it has not been nurtured in our society. Those preaching true freedom (no fallacy) have been marginalized by those currently on the receiving end of the illgotten gains of power, or those seeking to supplant them. Since those same people had control of the education and media for years, one dissident voice could not be heard by the masses. The internet is changing this.
I think you undermined your own point there by saying that the educational institutions and the media have bee nurturing this view. Of course there are people who see through the illusion, but our society doesn't acknowledge such individuals (as you said).
Surely this was a joke. You are suggesting that without the laws that the majority support, suddenly everyone would fall to murdering and fucking babies, and that without laws from a coercive entity that I wouldn't know when to defend myself?
It's not a joke. Without laws, yes; I think you would see a greater number of people engaging in such acts (not necessarily the vast majority).
The only thing inhibiting individuals from non positive action is themselves and other individuals. Government makes no affect on this. Considering the root, the methods, and the history of coercive government, it is the most regressive thing I can imagine.
You're saying that legal ramifications have no effect on whether or not people commit crimes? I don't think you have proof for such a claim, and I don't agree with it.
No one is suggesting a situation of "against every man, and every man against him". This would not happen anyway. People are generally "herd animals". Merely voluntary association and governance. It happens all the time on the micro level. There is no reason it cannot happen on a macro level. We do not need to rob and murder to prevent the same.
I know you're not suggesting such a situation, and this is really beside the point for me. My issue is that hierarhical institutions will not remain nonexistent in an anarchist state.
Also, you said defense. Post action justice is not defense. It is retribution. That is not defense. Government never defends anyone. They merely apprehend and confine the perpetrators at a further cost to society. This method of "justice" is insane.
This is an excellent point. And I'm glad there aren't police assigned to my place of residence to keep me safe from intruders.
The baby is humanity. Coercive government is the insane bather holding it down under the dirty bath water of violence.
Very eloquent.
The inability to think outside the statist box lends itself to satire...
I agree with everything you say about restriction and governmental limitation, Dak. I just don't agree with your proposed solution.
It is not society nor culture that forbids you to kill but the inalienable right of another man to live. That is also not a compromise between two rights but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an act/order of society but from your own inalienable individual rights. that definition of that limit is not set by society but is implicit in the definition of your own right.
It is not an inalienable right of man to live; it just happens to be a fact of our physiology that we live. I'm not saying people shouldn't pursue their own personal livelihood, or just give up trying to survive; but to imagine there's an abstract value of life aside from a subject's simple instinct to preserve its life is incorrect.
Freedom is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle. What is intrinsic is the principal of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion. Men have always been free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of mans mind and his survival.
Freedom is intrinsic.
Freedom is not intrinsic.
PS no offense, but I think you read too much collectivist philosophy.
I have no idea what this means, but none taken. If I read collectivist philosophy, it's because it provides an intellectual critique of our current political/economic system. Furthermore, the critique of freedom as a value isn't necessarily a "collectivist philosophical" stance. The most immediate figure that comes to mind is Michel Foucault, who renounced his party ties and whose writing is much more Nietzschean than anything else. Nietzsche, as well, is an intense critic of the notion of "freedom."
