Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

elddar1 wrote

Free will has been challenged on many fronts.

Not to be difficult, consider co-ordination dynamics, the Haken-Kelso-Bunz equation.

At a very fundamental level, change is predicable and understandable.

What about cognitive functions? Similar models?

Perhaps instead of free will it is of use to consider random will.

Ever had to choose ( food, paint color, music, a night out, etc.) and find the choices too much yet you do in the end choose?

I didn't choose the clothes you wore today, but did you?

Of course you did.

From these more humble thoughts, work up to what we believe are well understood systems. Are high level systems ( weather, economics, politics, biology) well thought out, understood?

Anarchism may just be as random as law and order.

Friendly food for thought I hope.

3

happy wrote

I would recommend the short essay Anarchy Against Utopia https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-anarchy-against-utopia

Anarchy is not utopian and to have utopian ideals means there is an image of perfection. Perfection is a catechesis and people will have different ideas of perfection and therefore perfection doesn't exist. Governments strive for perfection in one way or the other but it never works because there is no such thing as perfection.

Anarchy is the best way for everyone to live out their own ideas of perfection.

I totally went off on a tangent. You were talking about free will and I don't see why it matters if we truly have free will or not. We still make independent choices everyday regardless of existing rules and the wiring in our brains.

1

robottroymacclure wrote

pardon me, i agree, aiming towards perfection is a fools errand. we still exist in an environment of limited cooperation and gamesmanship. there are only so many resources, others will attempt to take what you would share. what do we do about that? our autonomous collective still exists in the belly of the leviathan. is that acceptable and can we make peace? or do we have to win the battle of ideology?

2

happy wrote

If I actually owned my labor and I was sharing it, but people were taking more than I felt comfortable with them taking, then I would either stop sharing as much or simply stop sharing as much with those individuals.

If I am sharing that means that I want the products of my labor to be uses by others. Say if I had a garden and had too many tomatoes so I put some out on the sidewalk with a free sign and someone came up and took all of them I wouldn't be upset because I was sharing all of those tomatoes.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

I personally don’t rage against nature. What I rage against is people who are slaves to their need to dominate over other people. Perhaps anarchy isn’t the ultimate realization of free will, but it’s freedom of life and movement for me. I would like to have the problem of pondering free will in an environment that maximizes freedom.

1

robottroymacclure wrote

i agree but i would add that every individual has a responsibility to free themselves from the consumerist lifestyle. freedom is making due with less to minimize your obligations to financal/governmental institutions.

2

jadedctrl wrote

Regardless as to whether or not free will exists, we can tangibly observe human behaviour and communication— and there are way more than enough instances of anarchism throughout human history to show that anarchism is possible.

2

robottroymacclure wrote

in limited conditions anarchism can exist. hierarchy is just as natural as cooperative engagement. if you want to limit hierarchy and emphasis cooperative engagement how do you do so without political cooperation and regulation of the commons? if we were all still in limited bands of hunter gatherers or lived on a rock in space anarchy would be appropriate in that instance. do you propose to somehow create the conditions necessary that we are all hunter-gatherers or space-farers? i think anarchy exists in a limited sense but free will is not real because we will always be embedded in these systems. individual autonomy exists freedom does not.

4

jadedctrl wrote

If free will isn't real (and we are entirely products of the systems we live in, acting only in reaction to our environments), we can still establish a culture of cooperation necessary to establish anarchism. Freedom might not exist, but we can still use our individual autonomy to change our environments, even if it's just a bit at a time.

0

Anarcropolis wrote

Restrictions on human freedom don't have to be "legal". I believe we have limited free will, there are things we cannot control, things put into us by evolution and by socialization that we can't control but influence our thoughts and actions. Freedom from hierarchy doesn't mean freedom from existence.