— SteemCN

RE: Aristotle vs. Kokesh: Don’t Vote in 2020! Be a Voluntaryist (we’re already winning anyway)

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Aristotle vs. Kokesh: Don’t Vote in 2020! Be a Voluntaryist (we’re already winning anyway)

View the full context

jasonvansickle (40) in anarchy • 7 years ago

I agree with you philosophically, but it's one thing to live in the realm of ideas and another to live in the material world. The material world and those in it do not care about ideology and whether it is wrong or right or anything in-between.

You are taking an ideological stance, which by my definition is rigid. The real world is not rigid. The reality of the world is that things in it are constantly changing. To take an ideological stance is to not engage with what is happening around you and ignore change. It is living in the realm of the mind. This is quite different than the material realm. I'd love for Voluntaryism to manifest, but you don't magically get from point A to point B, as nice as that would be.

I do love a good philosophical analysis though! You did a great job of doing just that.

anarchy

7 years ago by jasonvansickle (40)

$0.00

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

[-]

finnian (58) · 7 years ago (edited)

Sure, the battle for individual liberty and cooperation against tryannical forces that use control instead will always be ongoing. It will sway back and forth along that true left and right scale. The battle is worth fighting though for the side of individual liberty and cooperation. That's not rigid. We know the scale is moving, and we are doing our best to move it towards the good side. :)

$0.04

1 vote

[-]

kafkanarchy84 (74) · 7 years ago (edited)

To take an ideological stance is to not engage with what is happening around you and ignore change. It is living in the realm of the mind. This is quite different than the material realm.

First, this is an unsubstantiated claim, and not an argument. Second, the stance I have taken is the most hard-nosed, realistic stance there is. To say that “a few individuals must be harmed” for the “greater good” is the truly presumptive stance made from a mind disconnected with the perils and opportunities of concrete reality.

It’s not a voluntaryist position by definition! nothing about opinion here—that’s the reality.
It doesn’t acknowledge that reality of the smallest minority, which is the individual.

The “ends justifies the means” pie-in-the-sky collectivist utopianism you have describe is indeed unrealistic. I agree you don’t magically get from A to B , because A is A! ;)

$0.00