Passionate, Joel, but not convincing. In opposition to Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-40 (33-46) and Mosiah 29:13, together with other Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu principles which are self-evident as well as scriptural...
...you seem to counsel chaos.
Tolstoy, Aristotle, Gandhi, Sidhartha Buddha, Joseph Smith, and Jesus the Christ all agree that the self-initiated regeneration of the inner man is paramount. But not anarchy.
Aristotle named the moral form of rule by a few "Aristocracy", right? "Rule by the best!" And popularly elected government for the good of everyone in the polis/citystate he named politeia; the politician being, by definition, a statesman.
Jesus rules as the Savior of the world – and takes upon Himself and His followers the responsibility of righting the damages caused by all of the sins of the earth through all time, with millions of self-initiated re-generates freely pledged to consecrate their all to serve Him in that.
Who wishes to be freed from this aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy? Not those who regenerate their inner man. Not the billions who wish and dream at this moment of being ruled by such glorious beings of wisdom and love. Their dream has already been established, and is in the final stages of development as we live, and breathe, and regenerate ourselves to be part of it.
This still misses the point. You cannot introspectively determine how another individual wants to be treated. The key is you must not break consent first.
I agree, the record did not indicate that Jesus demonstrated behavior toward others (except for destruction to property in thetemple, and verbal exchanges), other than having first received invitation. So, do not engage, except for mutual prior agreement.
Yes Joel, every generation thinks that they are more enlightened and humane then the last generation, but as we see, times change but us humans remain the same🤔
I can not say in words that this article has given Me. It is so profound and tells You and I how We are to start change. It is not by violence ,but from within. Each and every one of us has to start and this is the way, besides Divine intervention!
You posited a conundrum that I can't quickly resolve: I turn to the oppressor of my freedom -- the state -- for protection from those who seek to diminish my freedom. Maybe this explains the allure of "open carry."
Not only do you write sooth, but your commenters are fabulous as well!
I loved Tolstoy's brief description of government: "I sit on a man's back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back."
Anarchy is not Helter Shelter. I get it. Still, anarchy can evolve into complete breakdown of civil order.
Take a long look at Haiti. There is essentially no government in Haiti. But there is constant turmoil and violence or threats of voilence.
The populace must have some guiding and accepted principle. There must be a loving spirit. There must be order. People are not safe in Haiti.
In Denmark, there is order. People agree to be civil to one another. They have an inner dicipline as well as have an outer enforcer, the government. However, what happens when thousands of migrants arrive in such a society? There is suddently discord and the new arrivals see the old order as fools and prey upon them and attempt to force their values on them.
When society breaks down and chaos ensues your concept of anarchy becomes one in which the most violent and strong take over society. No one is safe and no one is happy except the takers.
Freedom dies.
Too much 'order' also kills freedom.
There has to be a balance between laws and freedom. Too much of either turns into license, not freedom.
Haiti vs Denmark.
Who wants to live in Haiti? Who in Denmark?
Yeah, I get it, Joel. Milei is trying to get the government off the backs of the people. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Government does have a place in life. It can become way too overbearing.
Balance. The balance slipped way to far in one direction in Argentina (and here in America now).
People require laws and enforcement to have a civil society. Just don't overdue it. Too many laws and suddenly everyone is a criminal. Too few laws and enforcement, and people start killing one another.
Liberty as defined is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behavior, views ,or way of life. Next is freedom , I do not think I need to define this word.
It seems that the state is telling me who my daughter must compete against in sports though a few years back it said the opposite. The state is spending my savings on on other from other countries or who it decides needs more of my savings. It is now busy programming who my children should marry. Seems it is imposing its will upon my personal goals and desires to live within my desires or infract upon my personal pursuit of happiness.
When the State exists, there will be some group of people permitted by the State's leadership the right to destroy others within the state. In anarchy, those people who can destroy you would not have the protection of the Sate for their actions against you; you will have the right to defend yourself with impunity.
Gee...I'm sounding like a philosopher for the Burn, Loot and Murder gang. Not my intent.
‘Properly understood, the term anarchy, which derives from the Greek anarchia, literally translates: an, “without” + arkhos, “ruler.” ‘
Why does ‘Without ruler’ immediately equate with achieving ‘freedom.’?
Are we not assuming ‘ruler’ is equated always to dictator as distinct from one who is there to perhaps could be a Solomon?
Solomon never struck me as being an advocate to avoid by restricting freedom but understood the wisdom that rules bring to civilised coexisting.
‘ Freedom from being owned...enslaved...forced against one’s will. Freedom to act voluntarily. Freedom to associate with whomever one so desires and under whatever conditions he or she sees fit...provided they do not diminish the ability of another to enjoy the same freedom.
Sorry to say ,but Solomon was not exactly pure. As noted when His son took over and the people asked Him to relieve some of the tax burden, He said it will be much heavier. I am not quoting word for word but You get the drift of what I am saying.
My depth of classics historical knowledge and research is by no means very deep, so thank you. Don.
I am sure you must be correct in regard to Solomon Inc and hence some dictatorial tendencies.
In this 21st century usage of words or adjectives and within the reality of 8 billion earthly human inhabitants, ALL being reputed as completely individual. with not one an exact replica of his fellow man, I still question if advocating for classic ‘anarchy’ is the route to mankind's individual ‘freedom’ or a better way forwards.
Societal coexistence without rules and guide-rails, or without some mechanisms to seek compliance for the benefit of others, might be defined as ‘anarcho’ or anarchistic but would it not also be a ‘chaotic’ world, with questionable values to one’s freedom, unless residing in one’s own unbearable cave ?
Without counting words, I think Joel just said more in less space than any current commentator than I’ve recently read.
"Do unto other as you would be done to, etc." Jesus was an anarchist.
Passionate, Joel, but not convincing. In opposition to Doctrine and Covenants 121:39-40 (33-46) and Mosiah 29:13, together with other Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu principles which are self-evident as well as scriptural...
...you seem to counsel chaos.
Tolstoy, Aristotle, Gandhi, Sidhartha Buddha, Joseph Smith, and Jesus the Christ all agree that the self-initiated regeneration of the inner man is paramount. But not anarchy.
Aristotle named the moral form of rule by a few "Aristocracy", right? "Rule by the best!" And popularly elected government for the good of everyone in the polis/citystate he named politeia; the politician being, by definition, a statesman.
Jesus rules as the Savior of the world – and takes upon Himself and His followers the responsibility of righting the damages caused by all of the sins of the earth through all time, with millions of self-initiated re-generates freely pledged to consecrate their all to serve Him in that.
Who wishes to be freed from this aristocracy, monarchy, theocracy? Not those who regenerate their inner man. Not the billions who wish and dream at this moment of being ruled by such glorious beings of wisdom and love. Their dream has already been established, and is in the final stages of development as we live, and breathe, and regenerate ourselves to be part of it.
Thanks for all you do, my friend.
This is a bad rule. If someone likes being hit and you do not, you do not want him to do unto you as would be done unto him.
Agree with Jesus being an anarchist. He set a great example, except allowing them to kill him.
A bad translation.
The Jews and the Dutch and maybe others translate it as :
"Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you."
This still misses the point. You cannot introspectively determine how another individual wants to be treated. The key is you must not break consent first.
Only do unto others what they consent to.
I agree, the record did not indicate that Jesus demonstrated behavior toward others (except for destruction to property in thetemple, and verbal exchanges), other than having first received invitation. So, do not engage, except for mutual prior agreement.
Yes Joel, every generation thinks that they are more enlightened and humane then the last generation, but as we see, times change but us humans remain the same🤔
The same group of shadow people are controlling things intergenerationally, so we are not free. Liberty for us would mean loss of power for them
I can not say in words that this article has given Me. It is so profound and tells You and I how We are to start change. It is not by violence ,but from within. Each and every one of us has to start and this is the way, besides Divine intervention!
You posited a conundrum that I can't quickly resolve: I turn to the oppressor of my freedom -- the state -- for protection from those who seek to diminish my freedom. Maybe this explains the allure of "open carry."
The best article I have read this year. Thank you.
Thank you for reading…and for your kind words. Cheers!
Excellent article. AND I think you found the Title of your next book.
“Beyond War & Peace”
Good Luck!
Hmm… I have been contemplating a work of non-fiction. A sound a sensible idea, good sir!
In Alienation - War or Peace - Space No One Can Hear You Scream
But "inalienable" coats a nice lipstick on Giger's xenomorph.
Not only do you write sooth, but your commenters are fabulous as well!
I loved Tolstoy's brief description of government: "I sit on a man's back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back."
Anarchy is not Helter Shelter. I get it. Still, anarchy can evolve into complete breakdown of civil order.
Take a long look at Haiti. There is essentially no government in Haiti. But there is constant turmoil and violence or threats of voilence.
The populace must have some guiding and accepted principle. There must be a loving spirit. There must be order. People are not safe in Haiti.
In Denmark, there is order. People agree to be civil to one another. They have an inner dicipline as well as have an outer enforcer, the government. However, what happens when thousands of migrants arrive in such a society? There is suddently discord and the new arrivals see the old order as fools and prey upon them and attempt to force their values on them.
When society breaks down and chaos ensues your concept of anarchy becomes one in which the most violent and strong take over society. No one is safe and no one is happy except the takers.
Freedom dies.
Too much 'order' also kills freedom.
There has to be a balance between laws and freedom. Too much of either turns into license, not freedom.
Haiti vs Denmark.
Who wants to live in Haiti? Who in Denmark?
Yeah, I get it, Joel. Milei is trying to get the government off the backs of the people. Just don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Government does have a place in life. It can become way too overbearing.
Balance. The balance slipped way to far in one direction in Argentina (and here in America now).
People require laws and enforcement to have a civil society. Just don't overdue it. Too many laws and suddenly everyone is a criminal. Too few laws and enforcement, and people start killing one another.
It is a thin line.
To paraphrase Thoreau the best government is one that governs least and when men deserve it, the best government is one that governs not at all.
I think the key point of the phrase is "When men deserve it" - and how is that defined? What do we need to do to get to that moment?
Liberty as defined is the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behavior, views ,or way of life. Next is freedom , I do not think I need to define this word.
What we need is; 'minarchy' / minimal government . The State's only function is ensuring the protection of private property which includes your body.
Absolute anarchy as great as Joel and Tolstoy paint the picture, can not work given man's propensity to greed and brutality.
Not a counterargument, but a needed supplement....
I would like to reprint this in The Flame physical newspaper with attribution please. It is well written.
All yours
Thank you so much
Top-notch. Thank you!
Brilliant and timely essay, thank you.
Joel, I liked this essay. It brings out Freedom as the bottom line. Will have to read a few more times. Thanks
It seems that the state is telling me who my daughter must compete against in sports though a few years back it said the opposite. The state is spending my savings on on other from other countries or who it decides needs more of my savings. It is now busy programming who my children should marry. Seems it is imposing its will upon my personal goals and desires to live within my desires or infract upon my personal pursuit of happiness.
When a mentally and morally corrupt people elect a mentally and morally corrupt government, we have these Un-United States of corruption 🤔
So true Steve.
When the State exists, there will be some group of people permitted by the State's leadership the right to destroy others within the state. In anarchy, those people who can destroy you would not have the protection of the Sate for their actions against you; you will have the right to defend yourself with impunity.
Gee...I'm sounding like a philosopher for the Burn, Loot and Murder gang. Not my intent.
‘Properly understood, the term anarchy, which derives from the Greek anarchia, literally translates: an, “without” + arkhos, “ruler.” ‘
Why does ‘Without ruler’ immediately equate with achieving ‘freedom.’?
Are we not assuming ‘ruler’ is equated always to dictator as distinct from one who is there to perhaps could be a Solomon?
Solomon never struck me as being an advocate to avoid by restricting freedom but understood the wisdom that rules bring to civilised coexisting.
‘ Freedom from being owned...enslaved...forced against one’s will. Freedom to act voluntarily. Freedom to associate with whomever one so desires and under whatever conditions he or she sees fit...provided they do not diminish the ability of another to enjoy the same freedom.
Sorry to say ,but Solomon was not exactly pure. As noted when His son took over and the people asked Him to relieve some of the tax burden, He said it will be much heavier. I am not quoting word for word but You get the drift of what I am saying.
My depth of classics historical knowledge and research is by no means very deep, so thank you. Don.
I am sure you must be correct in regard to Solomon Inc and hence some dictatorial tendencies.
In this 21st century usage of words or adjectives and within the reality of 8 billion earthly human inhabitants, ALL being reputed as completely individual. with not one an exact replica of his fellow man, I still question if advocating for classic ‘anarchy’ is the route to mankind's individual ‘freedom’ or a better way forwards.
Societal coexistence without rules and guide-rails, or without some mechanisms to seek compliance for the benefit of others, might be defined as ‘anarcho’ or anarchistic but would it not also be a ‘chaotic’ world, with questionable values to one’s freedom, unless residing in one’s own unbearable cave ?