Defining Freedom

[Unrealist42]

No, I have not read Franzen.

What I wrote is basically the Anarchist view freedom. The more freedom you have, the more personal responsibility and obligation. It is a difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism. Libertarians tend to gloss over the obligations of freedom and emphasize the liberties. Anarchism is not so naive.

In an authoritarian society you are more free because there are others to take on your responsibilities and obligations. You are free to bounce around inside the explicit barriers they put up to catch you. You don't even really need to know where they are because the authorities draw the lines for you.

With freedom these barriers are implicit but no less vague. It is your personal obligation and responsibility to know them and when you cross them you do so deliberately and bear the consequences.

[Marabod]

No, I have not read Franzen.

What I wrote is basically the Anarchist view freedom. The more freedom you have, the more personal responsibility and obligation. It is a difference between Anarchism and Libertarianism. Libertarians tend to gloss over the obligations of freedom and emphasize the liberties. Anarchism is not so naive.

In an authoritarian society you are more free because there are others to take on your responsibilities and obligations. You are free to bounce around inside the explicit barriers they put up to catch you. You don't even really need to know where they are because the authorities draw the lines for you.

With freedom these barriers are implicit but no less vague. It is your personal obligation and responsibility to know them and when you cross them you do so deliberately and bear the consequences.

Anarchism is a chimera exactly because your freedom exists until the point it intersects with a freedom of someone else, stronger than you. You are free to spit at every passer-by - but every passer-by is also free to react on this. One may react in a way that you would not be able to spit ever again...

[Unrealist42]

Anarchism is a chimera exactly because your freedom exists until the point it intersects with a freedom of someone else, stronger than you. You are free to spit at every passer-by - but every passer-by is also free to react on this. One may react in a way that you would not be able to spit ever again...

You confuse Anarchism with the no rules world of chaos.
Anarchism is not without organization or rules, just no organization or rules dictated from above. It is based on voluntary association. This means groups of individuals acting together in common endeavor, setting their own rules and organizational structure. Since the individual has free choice, there is only practical constraints that limit how many or which groups he or she may associate with.

It would be extremely perilous for anyone to set upon another in this sort of social organization since any of the victims associates may exact penalties or call on their own or other associations to do so. These groups can also avail themselves of the perpetrators own associates, whose members they may be associated with in other endeavors, to make amends. This is the inherent safety and security of life that many interlocking webs of personal and group responsibility and obligation generates.

[whitetrshsoldier]

You confuse Anarchism with the no rules world of chaos.
Anarchism is not without organization or rules, just no organization or rules dictated from above. It is based on voluntary association. This means groups of individuals acting together in common endeavor, setting their own rules and organizational structure. Since the individual has free choice, there is only practical constraints that limit how many or which groups he or she may associate with.

It would be extremely perilous for anyone to set upon another in this sort of social organization since any of the victims associates may exact penalties or call on their own or other associations to do so. These groups can also avail themselves of the perpetrators own associates, whose members they may be associated with in other endeavors, to make amends. This is the inherent safety and security of life that many interlocking webs of personal and group responsibility and obligation generates.

Not to de-rail the conversation entirely, but Anarchism by this definition is an oxymoron.

"Voluntary Association"? According to what? Principles, right? And principles are also known as ..... Laws?!

So people volunteer to abide by basic principles of conduct [i.e. laws].

How is that any different than a very basic form of democracy?

[Marabod]

Theoretical Anarchism is based on a free armed citizen. These citizens may act on their own and may choose to form the gangs and act together. It suggests no Laws and no central power over these citizens. An-archism means "no authority", no government. A form of Jungle law in other words, full equality and the right of the strongest. There was not a single successful attempt to materialise this concept in practice, as even a strong gang of free citizens still presents an authority, which enforces its laws onto the others.

[whitetrshsoldier]

Theoretical Anarchism is based on a free armed citizen. These citizens may act on their own and may choose to form the gangs and act together. It suggests no Laws and no central power over these citizens. An-archism means "no authority", no government. A form of Jungle law in other words, full equality and the right of the strongest. There was not a single successful attempt to materialise this concept in practice, as even a strong gang of free citizens still presents an authority, which enforces its laws onto the others.

"...may choose to form gangs"?

Sounds like a simple system of governance to me. Even in the absence of an established authority, one still exists ... Which is why it's an oxy-moron.

[Unrealist42]

An-archism, no ruler. i.e. no rule from above. it does not mean no rules at all. Anarchism is based on a series of principles and rights that have been developed over the last 170 years or so. Despite what ignorant people would like you to believe it is not based on no rules at all, that is just chaos.

If you really want to learn about Anarchism you can read Bakunin or Emma Goldman. Their writings are easily available.

Marabod, there are actually quite a few examples of successful self organized voluntary anarchist communities. The collapse of many, like the Paris Commune and Barcelona in the 1930s was due to violent invasion by anti-anarchist armies rather than any failings of the communities themselves.

[Marabod]

An-archism, no ruler. i.e. no rule from above. it does not mean no rules at all. Anarchism is based on a series of principles and rights that have been developed over the last 170 years or so. Despite what ignorant people would like you to believe it is not based on no rules at all, that is just chaos.

If you really want to learn about Anarchism you can read Bakunin or Emma Goldman. Their writings are easily available.

Marabod, there are actually quite a few examples of successful self organized voluntary anarchist communities. The collapse of many, like the Paris Commune and Barcelona in the 1930s was due to violent invasion by anti-anarchist armies rather than any failings of the communities themselves.

Paris Commune had nothing to do with anarchism! It was simply a City Council, a Shire, a Soviet, you name it. As such it was a form of local self-government, not a system without the government.

This would be a form of insult for you to recommend me to read Bakuin - did you yourself ever read him???

[whitetrshsoldier]

"Self-organized communities"?

Sounds like a group that gets together and institutes guidelines by which they will co-exist to me ... i.e. "governing" in it's most basic form.

Please explain where they escape the common notion?

[SHAHIN GHAEMMAGHAMI]

freedom is not free, however nobody wants to pay for it.it is like free musin download from internet.then only innocent people should pay the expensive price of freedom.by the way mark up of freedom is so unfair and too much. we may find cheaper freedom in nature where there is no human.as long as pragmatic view of if it works for me, it is a good thing exist among us, we have a hard time to reach to freedom because selfish behavior of pragmatic people give them the impression to do whatever they feel it works for them and NOT the other people.who cares about others.its only ME that is important.

[Unrealist42]

"Self-organized communities"?

Sounds like a group that gets together and institutes guidelines by which they will co-exist to me ... i.e. "governing" in it's most basic form.

Please explain where they escape the common notion?

The common notion of governing is the state, organized from the top down, with rulers. Anarchism is about governing without the state, organized from the bottom up, without rulers. it is indeed "governing" in its most basic form, anathema to the common notion.

[Marabod]

"Self-organized communities"?

Sounds like a group that gets together and institutes guidelines by which they will co-exist to me ... i.e. "governing" in it's most basic form.

Please explain where they escape the common notion?

The common notion of governing is the state, organized from the top down, with rulers. Anarchism is about governing without the state, organized from the bottom up, without rulers. it is indeed "governing" in its most basic form, anathema to the common notion.

Strange that you react like this to the obviously wise judgement. The societies were established for the sole reason of mutual protection, and at the very beginning were suggesting some form of power, ruling them. Who needs to live in a society which cannot protect you? Then one can as well go on their own! This is exactly why the chieftains, and then Kings appeared. I strongly suggest you to familiarise yourself with Friedrich Engels' important work "The origins of Family, Private Property and State". It is written for those fluent with 3R, no more - quite elaborate and easy-to-read language, well-performed reasoning, good factual substantiation.

The fathers of Anarchism, Bakunin and count Kropotkin, were theorists, not the practical Anarchists. A relaxed gentleman dives into some social fantasies, supported by a flute of Veuve Cliquot, supplied by the labour of the slave peasants... Real-life practical Anarchism we know 3 of - Russian Navy of 1916-1918, the 2-million strong gang of Nestor Makhno in Ukraine and Che Gevara. All collapsed, being unable to organise themselves well enough to withstand the pressure of an organised force. This trippled historical failure must be sufficient for a thinking human to understand that there is no such thing as Anarchism.

[Jonmicle]

hello

I think it is nice matter about freedom. you are defining the perfect freedom, and also defining the personal freedom.

JON
Corporate Motivational Speaker

[Mimind]

Utopian society is not possible..through anarchism or any other form of government or "non-government". Either all groups and governments do what they will and the strong survive..or there is one ruler who dictates to all. There is no way for people to live in peace with each other.

[Belinda]

Mimind, I usually call myself an atheist, however there is a God I trust in. The God I believe in is the potential for good that is within all human beings.Indeed we sometimes see this potential actualised.I call this God by more precise names, mercy, pity, peace and love.

Utter cynicism is life-denying and worse than useless in our struggles to survive and to make this world a better place for man and beast.