As a libertarian anarchist, I am pressed from time to time to defend anarchy against those who dispute its desirability or its feasibility. But, really, why should I be the one who must defend this condition (that is, the absence of rulers)? I live in a world in which gangs of total strangers -- people I do not know, people who do not know me, people I want nothing to do with -- presume to order me about in countless ways and to strip me of my wealth at their pleasure, putting the plunder to uses that in many cases I consider utterly abhorrent and achieving this domination over me only by making credible threats to bring violence to bear against me should I resist their impositions. THAT outrageous complex of actions, not my embrace of anarchy, is the condition that requires a defense. Strange to say, although the prevailing rulers insolence and moral arrogance rise to horrifying heights, many of their victims take completely for granted the legitimacy of the degrading and exploitative setup under which they live -- Stockholm syndrome writ large.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 20:30:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015