Anarchy

[Don Coyote]

You gotta have a label for your identity ECH, else how will you tell yourself apart from the other monkeys? the other monkeys that are non-conforming just like you know that you are one of them.

[Doktor Howl]

also, I am in favor of anything that utterly destroys the "art form" of interpretive dance.

also also, and I think this got lost a few pages back but bear with me because I just read everything after page 2 just now...

as near as I can figure out, "rational anarchism" is what you call it when you espouse a philosophy of living by a combination of common sense and personal responsibility within the larger framework of a governed society, only you think that somehow calling yourself an "anarchist" will make it easier to sleep with smelly hippie chicks who probably have trust funds.

because really, there's no reason not to just call that philosophy "rational personhood".

Once again, ECH cuts through the bullshit.

[BabylonHoruv]

also, I am in favor of anything that utterly destroys the "art form" of interpretive dance.

also also, and I think this got lost a few pages back but bear with me because I just read everything after page 2 just now...

as near as I can figure out, "rational anarchism" is what you call it when you espouse a philosophy of living by a combination of common sense and personal responsibility within the larger framework of a governed society, only you think that somehow calling yourself an "anarchist" will make it easier to sleep with smelly hippie chicks who probably have trust funds.

because really, there's no reason not to just call that philosophy "rational personhood".

Personally I'd call it Personal Anarchism rather than Rational Anarchism.  I'm not saying it is irrational, but I don't really find it to be any more rational than any of the coherent forms of Anarchy.  The focus isn't on rationality, it is on creating an Anarchy of one, a Personal Anarchy.

That's just my take on it though, I am not a Rational Anarchist (heh, yeah, sure, call me irrational, that was sort of my point.  Calling it Rational Anarchism is kind of like me calling my brand intelligent Anarchism, or reasonable Anarchism or something of the sort) I'm a Libertarian Socialist, also known as an Anarcho-Socialist or simply Anarchist (back before the Libertarian Capitalists and Anarcho-Primitivists and Rational Anarchists got in on the game)

Rational Personhood would be closer to Rationalism (or at least I'd think so), the philosophical approach to life espoused by the lesswrong blog.  It's not incompatible with Rational Anarchism, any more than than it is incompatible with Humanism, or Hobbesism or any other non-mystical rational philosophical school.

  Rational Anarchism meanwhile is definitely Anarchist, in that it does include the philosophy of no ruler over me, which is the core of Anarchy.  It is however more of a philosophy than a political stance.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm just a person.

But enjoy your labels!

[Cain]

Before humans lived there?

Almost tempted to cite Somalia too 

you probably should. After all, the Horn of Africa has a long tradition of peaceful interaction between neighbors.

Not to mention "50+ different armed groups all trying to establish a centralized government, and failing in various degrees" does not seem to meet any critireon of anarchist self-governance I've read about.

[East Coast Hustle]

no, but it's a perfect example of what would happen if the anarchists ever actually got their way.

[Cain]

Especially the failure part.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That means that the individual recognizes that he/she is 100% responsible for their actions and consciously choose those actions, 'legal or illegal' notwithstanding.

This is patently bullshit.

I think you might be misunderstanding the statement.

If you do X, you are responsible for doing X. There may be additional factors in overall guilt for the consequences (like your example), but the actions of each individual involved are their responsibility. We just discussed this recently and you and I were in agreement on that particular topic.

IF you shoot a person, you are responsible for that act. You may not be responsible for "murder", ie it may have been self defense, the person may have been hiding behind a shooting target where you were unable to see them. You are still responsible for your act of pulling the trigger. Every choice we make, every act we take is influenced by thousands and millions of data points, memetitic entities, shrapnel, BIP's etc etc etc... that may help us understand WHY a person made a choice, but it does not alleviate their responsibility for making that choice.

I may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:

Bob is a pilot, Dave is an evil bastard that wants to blow up a building. He gets into the cockpit, points a gun at Bob and says "Fly into that building or I will shoot you." Bob has several choices. He could fly into the building, he could fly into an empty patch of ground, he could fly into the water, he could try to fight with the guy and there's probably some other options as well.

No matter what he chooses, the pilot is responsible for that choice. There are absolutely outside factors, Dave with a gun, Bob's years of training, Bob's philosophy, etc etc... but in the end its Bob's hands on the wheel and based on his decision, either a plane full of people will die, or a plane full of people AND a building full of people will die.

Bob's responsibility for that decision though, in no way alleviates Dave's responsibility for the whole damn mess in the first plnce.

Sergeant Joe is personally responsible for torturing insurgents, even though his President is responsible for getting him into the war with the insurgents.

Dok Howell is responsible for stealing my sammich, even though I am responsible for its awesome deliciousness.

I

[LMNO]

I may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:

You may want to re-write this part, as it seems to contradict the rest of the post.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are responsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:

You may want to re-write this part, as it seems to contradict the rest of the post.

may understand why a person would fly an airplane into a building (In Texas or NYC) but it doesn't mean that they are notresponsible for flying the plane into the building, no matter what outside pressures are involved. IF we imagine it:[

Thanks Dok!! That's what I get for typing while on a conference call.

[East Coast Hustle]

I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".

[Doktor Howl]

I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".

If it doesn't have a label, it doesn't exist.  If it doesn't have an edgy label, it's boring.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I still don't understand why the need to call it some sort of "anarchism", unless you want to impress smelly girls with armpit hair and trust funds. Like I said, you could just call it "being a responsible and self-aware person".

I didn't come up with the concept. So I use the term to reference the concept that already exists.

[East Coast Hustle]

given how quick you are to blurt out "RATIONAL ANARCHISM!!!!" anytime something even remotely resembling the subject comes up, and knowing that you know what sort of response anything to do with anarchism will bring here, I have to believe that you are more invested in the terminology of the label than you claim to be.

[Adios]

I thought the core concept of rational anarchy was that government is a necessary evil?  

Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting the responsibility of running their own lives responsibly.

Horseshit.  Government is one of the consequences of people NOT wanting someone to kill them and take their sammich.

I think Blackstone had a lot to say on this subject. And he said most of it very well.