Anarchy: The extent of our rights.
Effectively arguing for such an extreme political ideology as anarchy requires a book length of arguments. Perhaps one day I will publish my beliefs, but until then you will all have to do with a series of blog posts, the first of which will face the issue of our own rights.
When considering anarchy as a feasible form of government, one must first consider the extent of our own rights over others. Anarchy is a political position which deeply resents the unequal power of one human over another. But, as I argued earlier, there are certain situations when we are given the right to assume power over another human. Such situations arise when a particular human is threatening our freedom and there is no other way to prevent this other than restricting this person’s freedom. Here I mean freedom in its broadest sense, for example; killing someone would be taking away their freedom to live and damaging them physically could possibly be taking away their freedom to move around easily (depending on how you damage them). You could be really petty and say that any action that a human takes is taking away someone’s freedom, for example; you could say that me speaking to you is taking away your freedom to not be spoken to. But that is quite obviously a ridiculous objection. These kinds of freedoms having nothing to do with the welfare of a human, my interest in freedom is rooted in the belief that it is something that will aid our survival and development as a species and of course that it is something we all deserve.
As some have you may have observed, the law takes upon itself to restrict others freedoms in the attempt to protect mankind’s freedom, much as I have just argued is acceptable. So why am I against the law? The law attempts to end ALL threat of an individual's restriction of certain freedoms by another. The law itself is a hypocrisy, it seeks to allow freedom by taking it away. The kinds of freedoms the law allows are freedoms that firstly it cannot get away with taking and secondly that will benefit it. If the law could get away with taking away all of our freedoms, besides the ones that it needs to allow us for its own benefit i.e. freedom of life, then I’m sure it would. When I argued that we are given the right to restrict another human’s freedom when our own freedoms are threatened, I meant this in an immediate sense. If somebody comes at me wielding a knife, I am not going to simply declare "you have a freedom to kill me, go ahead". I will take it upon myself to restrict their freedom until the threat is ended. If an organised group of fascist racists who have made it their mission to wipe out a whole race of people and threaten to invade my country and have already invaded others, I will not stand against any attempt to end this immediate threat.
In case any of you were confused about what an immediate threat was, it is not so black and white as to be able to easily declare one person or group of people an immediate threat and another not. A murderous psychopath who has killed, who is mentally disturbed and who it is shown is most likely to kill again, poses an immediate threat and therefore must have his or her freedoms restricted as is necessary to end this immediate threat. A father and husband who murdered his wife after she found out she was having an affair, does not by any means pose an immediate threat to others freedoms. So locking this man up is not necessary, providing him help and rehabilitation is what is needed. Similarly, if it is possible to in a sense "cure" the murderous psychopath so that he no longer poses a threat to others freedoms (which may or may not be possible) then it would be no longer necessary to restrict his freedoms. This system takes for granted that justice is not required, the only reason for this system is for the protection of freedom.
I am against law because it unnecessarily enforces itself upon others, restricting their freedoms when they pose no immediate threat to others freedoms. The illegalisation of drugs is an example of this unnecessary restriction of our freedoms. By taking drugs I am not posing an immediate threat to another’s freedoms, I may well pose my self as a threat if I chose to drive whilst using these drugs. But I am still not an immediate threat, the laws attempt to restrict my freedoms to take drugs and drive is not going to effectively end the threat.
We have no right over another human’s freedom unless it is in the interest of protecting our own freedoms when they are threatened by an immediate threat. The law is a system that serves to uphold itself in support of the government who has no interest in protecting its people or its people’s freedom other than to serve itself. This is why although I believe in certain cases we are given the right to restrict others freedoms, I do not believe in the law.
When considering anarchy as a feasible form of government, one must first consider the extent of our own rights over others. Anarchy is a political position which deeply resents the unequal power of one human over another. But, as I argued earlier, there are certain situations when we are given the right to assume power over another human. Such situations arise when a particular human is threatening our freedom and there is no other way to prevent this other than restricting this person’s freedom. Here I mean freedom in its broadest sense, for example; killing someone would be taking away their freedom to live and damaging them physically could possibly be taking away their freedom to move around easily (depending on how you damage them). You could be really petty and say that any action that a human takes is taking away someone’s freedom, for example; you could say that me speaking to you is taking away your freedom to not be spoken to. But that is quite obviously a ridiculous objection. These kinds of freedoms having nothing to do with the welfare of a human, my interest in freedom is rooted in the belief that it is something that will aid our survival and development as a species and of course that it is something we all deserve.
As some have you may have observed, the law takes upon itself to restrict others freedoms in the attempt to protect mankind’s freedom, much as I have just argued is acceptable. So why am I against the law? The law attempts to end ALL threat of an individual's restriction of certain freedoms by another. The law itself is a hypocrisy, it seeks to allow freedom by taking it away. The kinds of freedoms the law allows are freedoms that firstly it cannot get away with taking and secondly that will benefit it. If the law could get away with taking away all of our freedoms, besides the ones that it needs to allow us for its own benefit i.e. freedom of life, then I’m sure it would. When I argued that we are given the right to restrict another human’s freedom when our own freedoms are threatened, I meant this in an immediate sense. If somebody comes at me wielding a knife, I am not going to simply declare "you have a freedom to kill me, go ahead". I will take it upon myself to restrict their freedom until the threat is ended. If an organised group of fascist racists who have made it their mission to wipe out a whole race of people and threaten to invade my country and have already invaded others, I will not stand against any attempt to end this immediate threat.
In case any of you were confused about what an immediate threat was, it is not so black and white as to be able to easily declare one person or group of people an immediate threat and another not. A murderous psychopath who has killed, who is mentally disturbed and who it is shown is most likely to kill again, poses an immediate threat and therefore must have his or her freedoms restricted as is necessary to end this immediate threat. A father and husband who murdered his wife after she found out she was having an affair, does not by any means pose an immediate threat to others freedoms. So locking this man up is not necessary, providing him help and rehabilitation is what is needed. Similarly, if it is possible to in a sense "cure" the murderous psychopath so that he no longer poses a threat to others freedoms (which may or may not be possible) then it would be no longer necessary to restrict his freedoms. This system takes for granted that justice is not required, the only reason for this system is for the protection of freedom.
I am against law because it unnecessarily enforces itself upon others, restricting their freedoms when they pose no immediate threat to others freedoms. The illegalisation of drugs is an example of this unnecessary restriction of our freedoms. By taking drugs I am not posing an immediate threat to another’s freedoms, I may well pose my self as a threat if I chose to drive whilst using these drugs. But I am still not an immediate threat, the laws attempt to restrict my freedoms to take drugs and drive is not going to effectively end the threat.
We have no right over another human’s freedom unless it is in the interest of protecting our own freedoms when they are threatened by an immediate threat. The law is a system that serves to uphold itself in support of the government who has no interest in protecting its people or its people’s freedom other than to serve itself. This is why although I believe in certain cases we are given the right to restrict others freedoms, I do not believe in the law.
posted by Yours Truly at 4:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home