The following conversation took place at my Discord server.
The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)
I was mostly curious how anarchist would be tackling the challenges of a pandemic, so I’ve been lurking.
The question of how anarchists would deal with pandemics is a strange question. It’s the same as how will society “work” without government, just different wording. Honestly, I don’t know how to answer for hundreds (possibly thousands) of other anarchists. I’m sure they each have their own ideas on how to deal with the situation.
How is that a strange question? This is something you’d have to deal with in reality. Why do anarchist just pretend that these issues don’t exist?They always seem to just put the problem for others to solve rather then address it themselves. They assume that as long as they just kind their own business, the problem will disappear.
Anarchists are just a subset of humanity, just with a different set of beliefs. I say it’s a strange question for the reason I mentioned already — are you asking me to answer for thousands of other people who, presumably would act in different ways to a pandemic? I’m sorry but that’s impossible for me to give an answer. Now, if you were asking me the question personally, that would make more sense.
You’d think of anarchy were such an advanced political system that it’d have no problem with scrutiny. And as usual, the answer is: idk, someone else will figure it out.
“idk, someone else will figure it out.”
I really don’t know how others would react to the situation. Don’t assume that I know. I’m not saying that “others would figure it out”, although it would be awesome if someone out there had a solution to a pandemic. Leaving the problem to be solved for others is the statist mentality. You have your government to do all the thinking for you, so why accuse anarchists of such?
I’d handle the situation in my own away, anarchists or no anarchists.
Do you get your information on viruses from your own research and testing, or do you listen to the WHO and health authorities?
I’m cautious to trust any information about the virus.
So how do you know what is and is not factual about it? How do you know how to protect yourself against it? How can you ensure others will do the same?
Good question. I’m skeptical. These questions are constantly floating in my head when I hear ppl talking about it. Is this virus real? Are the scientists telling the truth? Do I personally know anyone who has this virus? Is it true that many people (allegedly) died from the virus? What if they did from some other virus? Did anyone actually die from it?
“How do you know how to protect yourself against it?”
I’m not sure to protect myself from something that I don’t yet know exists.
And why do you think you can’t trust the experts?
What experts? If they’re hired by government that’s all the more reason I don’t trust them. I wouldn’t trust the scientists hired by the Nazis if I lived in that era.
So because they are government, they are probably bad…. So what about the ones in the private sector? Good?
I might give them their due. But still I’m a cautious man…
Why so paranoid?
What constitutes as paranoia in anything I’ve said above. I do make a personal judgment on who I currently trust or distrust. I’m just being cautious about it, the same way these people walk around with masks and gloves are being cautious, except that they clearly believe what they heard.
Your cautious distrust of experts is paranoia. Of course we can all point to times where they may have done wrong, but why ignore all the times they were right?
The concept of political authority can never be moral. Therefore, them being correct on certain issues is not only irrelevant but is very small when viewing the bigger picture.
I don’t understand enough about paranoia to agree with you. A quick search shows that paranoia is a personality disorder, delusion and schizophrenia. I don’t think I have any of those to be considered a paranoid person. All I’m saying is that I haven’t seen “sufficient” evidence or information to conclude the virus is legitimate. I don’t think the scientists are lying. But if I had a conversation with one at his work station laboratory and showed me graphs, pictures, slides, etc., I’d be going “Hm, interesting” the whole time, and at the end of the day it still wouldn’t sway me. With all I seen so far, I’m not convinced enough to wear a mask or latex gloves. That’s all I’m sayin’.
It’s a damn shame that we live in a world where you can’t trust anything. Even worse, it’s actually more likely that something’s a manipulative lie than the truth.
Symbolic power (authority) and symbolic value (money) are the two influences that keep things this way. Without these false beliefs, dishonesty and all forms of immorality are all but utterly disincentivized.
What is the anarchist response to pandemic? I don’t know.
What is the free will response to pandemic? Since we can only make decisions for our individual selves, the only thing one can do is on an individual basis. One cannot make decisions for any one else. And to rely on someone else to make a decision for you, is against free will.
Ultimately, the only choice an individual can make is a responsible one, or suffer the consequences. That goes both ways, both side of the coin…..doing and being done to.
Abdul > SAM101907
If a government decided that the virus was not a good enough reason to go under a lockdown and ordered everyone to carry on as normal (which causes the deaths of all those who are vulnerable to the virus), would doing what the governments says still be the best course of action?
holeymoley > Abdul
“which causes the deaths of all those who are vulnerable to the virus”
There’s no proof of that. There’s no proof of what you say. There’s no proof that carrying on as normal would be the contributing cause of the deaths of all those who are vulnerable to the virus. They could be dying DESPITE all the so-called precautionary measures being taken. Who knows?
bbblackwell > holeymoley
Nothing could be less relevant than the statist question, ”What would anarchists do?”. They ask it as though a satisfactory answer is a prudent prerequisite for accepting the position. Anyone operating from this perspective does not have the faintest understanding of the issue. I’m speaking in the absolute.
This question (in this context) can only arise from a lack of knowledge—a blind spot. Familiarity with the arguments for anarchy alone—no matter how thorough—cannot, in the slightest way, compensate for what’s lacking. That’s why it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat yourself, or how many different ways you explain it.
What’s missing is an understanding of what morality is on the most fundamental level. Not every anarchist has this understanding, but every statist does not.
I’m thinking if an “anarchist” doesn’t have this understanding, they’re not “anarchist”.
bbblackwell > holeymoley
I wholeheartedly agree, though many would call themselves such if they don’t support the existence of government.
How many “anarchists” are non-vegan; asserting their rule over the lives of animals? How many are gung-ho supporters of economic systems that include forms of symbolic value, which necessarily result in power differentials based upon material accumulation? How many believe they’re justified in limiting the interactions of their romantic partners?
Physical adherence to the NAP is the most rudimentary baseline for morality—it ain’t the whole story by far.
Join our Discord community!
Let’s have a LIVE chat!
1st BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
2nd BITCHUTE: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/