Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

sharp_dressed_left wrote

By losers who do you mean?

If you don't have a certain level of equality between people - i.e. access to food, shelter, water, etc. Then surely those fortunate enough to happen to naturally have resources would only have freedom in theory - in practice would their freedom not be overshadowed by their moral obligation and human compassion to share their resources with their less fortunate neighbours? Thus willingly sacrificing a significant portion of their freedom go preserve life in the absence of societal equality? And if you don't think humans are so compassionate, then it works the other way round. Where those fortunate enough to have the resources to do something with their freedom would be under constant threat of attack by the less fortunate, desperate for the basic resources. And so the fortunate few's lives, security and freedom are so precarious without equality?

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

By losers I mean people who have a general inclination to lose. From losing the attention of the liked female - which lead to monogamy and strict rules to enforce marriage - to losing a job - which lead to all sort of social concepts and insurances.

In short: if you know you are going to lose, you are going to be a staunch egalitarian. Even the slightest hope of a chance to win, than the egalitarian stance starts to slowly fade away. As only the mentally disabled can be certain of something, each of us has at least some shade of egalitarianism inside, lurking around the corner.

0

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Funny thing. I used to consider christian anarchism an aberration. Reading people in here it becomes quite obvious that it's the only flavor around. Sacrifice? Fortunate?