Explanation of the “UNConstitution”
The UNConstitution is a loose formal embodiment of how an anarchist commune might structure itself. Even without a state, it is still good to outline such things in a concrete way, so that members of the society can know what is expected of them, and what they should expect for others. I believe that anarchism is the true way for humanity to operate as a race: truly, it epitomizes the progress of humanity to show that in fact, no, we do not need a paternalistic state to tell us to behave and do our chores.
Many make the case that anarchism falls most short in its protection of civil freedom, that by giving a man the authority to do as he pleases, our aggregate freedom declines as one man infringes upon his neighbor’s freedom. There are many things at work in objections such as these, not the least of which is the typical assumption of a laissez-faire capitalist system, where one man’s loss is another man’s gain. Barring that, it is true that overall freedom will decrease if some individuals go around infringing upon others’ rights, but when the socio-economic system is formulated in a way that discourages this, half the battle will have been won. The other half is an objection that some political theorists make by arguing that in order to be truly free, we must be forced to be free; that is, we need a state to coerce us into not harming our neighbor, even if we would otherwise not want to. But coercion is no more a restriction than is voluntary consent: at the end of the day, if I have the means and will to hurt someone, it can be done regardless of the state’s promise to punish me. Any other objections, such as crime (or in anarchism, an unwarranted violation of someone else), occur regardles...
... middle of paper ...
...s, but honestly, I felt somewhat underwhelmed by my many of my classmates’ theories. It seemed to me that maybe they simply had not given it as much thought or analysis, or spent much of their time working out the intricacies of the specific scenario than trying to create an innovative new way of doing things.
One thing that I did feel I came to understand better was the way that society influences politics, even anarchist politics. As a group member pointed out, at the end of the day, any theory all really boils down to opinion and popular belief. No system is effective unless there is sufficient support for it, even if it is ‘perfect’ in every way. So many of our problem, be them political or otherwise, are at their heart psychological and sociological phenomenon. Thus, what would really change humanity for the better is not a better ideology, but better people!
...n a government is the group that states what is to be socially acceptable and what is not, it greatly hinders a person ability to act as an individual. Whether it is the fear of being classified as abnormal, false or unjust imprisonment, or making a show out of large groups of the abnormal people, it is all in order for the government to maintain control. Within both of these contexts it is more important for there to be a strong central government than to allow a person to truly be an unique, which in return takes away what is considered to be a persons right.
For utilitarian purposes, such as social safety and security in A Clockwork Orange and economic stability in The Unincorporated Man, freedom has to be taken away from the people. However, the lack of freedom results in dehumanized people and a cold, inhumane society, which can eventually lead to chaos and the total opposite of what the governing bodies try to achieve in the first place. Both A Clockwork Orange and The Unincorporated Man show how in order to gain control, freedom has to be taken away, but yet freedom is needed to maintain that control, and hence the conflict between control and freedom is a never ending one.
“Anarchism recognizes the rights of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.”(Goldman, 56) An Anarchic state provides the ability of equality not only between gender, and class, but also between race and religion. Emma Goldman fought for political and social equality between men and women. In some aspects Goldman argued that when a decision is freely chosen then the outcome can be drastically different compared to a decision that has been forced upon the person. In Goldman’s essay’s she propagates that by getting rid of the state it would not create chaos, but would help create harmony.
During this time, in 1910, one of her most distinguished pieces of literature was published. In Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, Goldman begins with a quote about anarchy from John Henry Mackay, a Scottish-German anarchist author and philosopher. This quote ends with a notable bit, in which Mackay declares, “I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will not rule, and also ruled I will not be.” Goldman continues in, saying that the main issue the masses have with anarchism is born out of ignorance on the topic. Most people who are unfamiliar with this ideology peg it as being focused on violence and chaos. Goldman refutes this untrue claim, saying that the very thing anarchism is looking to combat is ignorance and nothing else. By its definition, anarchism strives to allow people to think for themselves, to break free from societal restraints, and unlearn the lies that have been spoon fed to us. Goldman says that anarchism is special, in that it is the only ideology that encourages humanity to think for themselves, and the only one that insists God, the state, and society are, and should remain, non existent. The only thing worth relying on to bring people together as a collective whole is anarchism, and it cannot and should not be ignored any longer. Further in her piece, she alludes to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s piece on property, and
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
Thomas Hobbes is a 17th century English philosopher who argued in Leviathan that the natural condition of mankind would result in a war of all against all if humans were not subject to state power. He concludes this by saying that if there were no government, no civilization, no laws and no common power to prevent human nature; human beings would result to the destruction of each other. In this paper I will show how Thomas Hobbes is right in holding that if we were not subject to state power; we would be plunged into a war of all against all. I will show this by using different scenarios in anarchistic community.
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
John Mill’s On Liberty seeks to expound on how individuals and the society can exist as liberal entities without infringing on each other’s rights. Liberty is the condition of being free within the society, that is free from any form of restriction inflicted by authority. He argues that individual freedom is the basis of democracy where people exercise their own free will (Mill 2005). He also rejects the idea of social contract where individuals comply with society for them to gain social benefit (Mill 2005). It is generally thought that social development can only occur if certain constraints are placed on individual liberty. But the contrary is also true, if restriction are placed on people’s freedom, it becomes difficult for them to thrive
is at odds with the idea of a civil society since it is illogical to think that people would consent to be governed by a government that is worse than the state of nature. A society in which the government is above or outside the law remains in a state of nature because there is no security against violence and oppression. Therefore, this exercise of arbitrary power again puts the absolute government in a state of war against its people because, as Locke writes:
Judd Owen, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, attempts to defend the liberal interpretation of Hobbes’s political philosophy by demonstrating his promotion of a “liberal politics of toleration” (pg. 133). Owen begins by asking the following question: “How can Hobbes’s political philosophy be directed to a tolerant regime, and yet be hostile to the granting of unconditional freedoms or rights?” (pg. 134). In truth, those who enter into a commonwealth via the social contract forfeit almost all of the rights and liberties that they possessed in the state of nature (except the right to self-defense). However, Owen proceeds to explicate how the aim of Hobbes’s civil society is not the alienation of individual liberties (although individual rights are in fact alienated). Rather, this forfeiture of rights is only a means by which to secure the greatest amount of liberty that can actually be enjoyed by the individual. In other terms, human beings possess unrestricted liberty rights in the state of nature, but they are neither free enough nor secure enough to enjoy them without constant threat of violence or death. Thus, individuals consent to engage in civil society because it is the only condition in which they can enjoy a modicum of liberty and true freedom of will. Although the subjects of a commonwealth must give up their claims to absolute liberty, the sovereign authority and civil law allow for a great deal of individual toleration. For example,
The representative population of a community is not comfortable when confronted by an individual who defies the laws that bind them. Whether or not the laws or the powers behind them are just, the populace must deal with any challenge to their authority. In some cases, the community, fearful of a powerful regime, will side with that power and avoid the risks associated with rebellion. Others find the tyranny too unjust to stand idly by and, risking their lives, join with other defiant individuals against it.
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding to one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes. After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest. From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm; and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws.
The focus of this paper will be on criticizing the argument. He effectively explains what justifies the authority of the state by giving reasons that anarchy is better for autonomous nature of man. One might agree that the state can command an individual to obey the rule even if it is against the person’s moral beliefs. His argument, however, seems to undermine the
Tom Paine described the state as a “necessary evil”. It is necessary in that it establishes order and security and ensures that contracts are carried out. Yet, it is “evil” since it enforces collective will upon society, thus constraining individual freedom. Negative freedom also supports economic freedom.
Firstly I feel as though I have learned a lot during this period in time and understand the idea of a two-sided approach to every situation. In every interaction each person involved much understand that the other person has a different set of values and goods that may conflict with yours, however conflicting goods are not a negative thing it simply provides the opportunity to learn. ( put quote here from text from conflict ).