That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
I’m all for it ending the power of the state. Destroying it is a different argument, power vacuums don’t end well and have never resulted in no state.
I don’t want these things because I think it’s going to reduce suffering. For me it’s entirely about consent.
Any idea that it will lead to some reduction or gain in anything in particular except personal freedom is conjecture.
Also, I don’t base my ideas on the writings of long dead men nor suggest others do. If it’s not possible for one to travel their own path and make their own arguments based on first principles derived from their own experiences, then how can one argue anarchism is feasible.
The only path forward I see is to forward use the mechanisms of the state to make the state impotent; irreversibly neutered.
I have no interest in destabilizing things such that some power hungry asshole can come in and exploit the progress to is make things worse, which historical what has occurred each time.
The state will never wither away, the masters tool will not destroy the masters house. It can only stop existing through revolutionary conflict. Power hungry arseholes already have come in and have been in for hundreds and thousands of years.
Violent revolution will temporarily increase suffering.
How to you intend to maintain it? What do you intend to put in place so they don’t violently take it control and how does that differ from what I have proposed?
That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
You’re not minimising it, you’re continuing it. The only ethical answer is to destroy the state (reduce suffering greatly).
Source?
Also, weird that destroying the state is also the right’s alleged goal.
Source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Uses anarchist instance, posts in anarchist memes comm, confused about abolition of the state being a core anarchist principle. Go figure.
I’m all for it ending the power of the state. Destroying it is a different argument, power vacuums don’t end well and have never resulted in no state.
I don’t want these things because I think it’s going to reduce suffering. For me it’s entirely about consent.
Any idea that it will lead to some reduction or gain in anything in particular except personal freedom is conjecture.
Also, I don’t base my ideas on the writings of long dead men nor suggest others do. If it’s not possible for one to travel their own path and make their own arguments based on first principles derived from their own experiences, then how can one argue anarchism is feasible.
The only path forward I see is to forward use the mechanisms of the state to make the state impotent; irreversibly neutered.
I have no interest in destabilizing things such that some power hungry asshole can come in and exploit the progress to is make things worse, which historical what has occurred each time.
The state will never wither away, the masters tool will not destroy the masters house. It can only stop existing through revolutionary conflict. Power hungry arseholes already have come in and have been in for hundreds and thousands of years.
If you believe that then what allows you to believe the masters will allow us to destroy it?
What is your mechanism for tricking them or forcing them to give up power and never try again?
I don’t expect them to allow us to, I expect it will take violent revolution and many deaths to gain it.
Violent revolution will temporarily increase suffering.
How to you intend to maintain it? What do you intend to put in place so they don’t violently take it control and how does that differ from what I have proposed?