The Anarchist Man : An Introduction.

So I've finally decided to make my own blog. Oh, hello, I am Zeko a.k.a. 'The Anarchist Man' but surely not the only anarchist on the planet. After literally months, nay, years of scrolling through blogs and websites dedicated to libertarian ideas of freedom I've decided to make my little humble abode in the miraculous world of cyberspace.

So why the title? Why 'The Anarchist Man?' Well, not that it sounds cool or anything but it is actually reflective of my own political philosophy. I guess this begs the question ' What do you mean by anarchism?' Some of you are probably thinking; "Are you insane?" "Do you advocate some kind of pure chaos where people murder other people without laws to restrain them?"
Well, most assuredly, I do not think of anarchism in those terms. Anarchism, far from being a Hobbesian Jungle portrayed in popular myth, is a rather sophisticated political philosophy on how society should function.

Anarchism, in my conception , is rather logically concluded from ideas of liberty and freedom. Anarchism , being Greek derived , quite literally means 'without ruler.' If there are people that claim to be advocates of freedom and liberty , is it not logical that they would oppose people ruling other people? That is an interesting question is it not? Existentially speaking, are we all not just 'people,' or rather, individual persons that form a conceptual aggregate of 'people?' Why should someone rule over me in the absolute sense? If he is my absolute ruler, does it not mean that there is no possibility of me ruling over him? Not that I want to rule over him but rather I question why , if we are both physiologically, identical human beings, does he get to claim the moral right to be my ruler but I may not be his? Is there something objective about us , meaning , is there something that exists in the real world about us that allows one of us to claim moral permissibility to rule one and other? As far as I can tell , no. We are equal in the sense that we are biological human beings with the same capacity or potential to reason.

I acknowledge a certain sense of inherent inequality between human beings but I hold that these inequalities hold no moral properties , or rather , should not hold any moral properties. It could be very well the case that someone is born with a better singing voice than I. It could also be the case that this person uses their natural talent to earn an income while I lack the talent to do so. However, this , in no way can mean that this person holds some moral superiority over me by virtue of their larynx putting out sound waves different than mine. I don't think many people would contest this point or even claim that the singer is somehow immoral because he or she has a natural advantage over others that lack a good singing voice. These kinds of inequalities are natural just as a tall man is more likely to succeed at basketball than a very short one.

However, there is a bigger question as regards equality and it is a moral question. It centers around institutions of social power, disparities in wealth , psychology, and as an extension of psychology, concepts people hold about their society.

Let us examine the first:

Institutions of Social Power:

These are most frequently what we conceive of as states and governments. They can also be churches, clubs, gangs, clans , families and other social organizations that have significant influence on society. By far, the most powerful of these , in terms of the ability to force and coerce masses of people, are states and governments. Some of these other social organizations become more powerful than others depending on the context. I shall discuss these , each in detail, in following posts.

Disparity of Wealth or Economic Disparities :

In any given society , not everyone is rich , or rather , wields a tremendous amount of economic power relative to others. By far, of any economic system to date , capitalism has churned out the most wealth. It has also created some of the richest, most powerful, people in human history. Undeniably, wealth distribution in a given society helps shape cultural differences between people we would typically call 'classes' but also these classes can be antagonistic to each other sort of perpetuating a general insecurity in that society. I will dedicate a lot of posts to the economic factors that cause disparities between people and help to shape prevailing concepts.

As a subset of economic factors effecting societies, there is technology. There is a process economist Joseph Schumpeter described called 'creative destruction.' New technology helps shape people's relationships to objects and themselves in a significant way.


Psychology and Concepts :

Undoubtedly, at least for me, this has got to be the most important factor in shaping the differences between people. Psychology is a study of the human mind on the individual level though the social sciences seek to create a more general picture of social psychology , or rather , what are people thinking when they interact with each other and why? Since psychology involves the human mind , and concepts about reality are formed in our minds , this is directly related to how people perceive the world and their relationships with other people. Psychology and Concepts also are our basis for ethics and moral judgment. I will discuss these topics in following posts in more detail.

Needless to say, I have exhausted quite a bit of time thinking over these issues of human relationships and through my own reasoning , be it right or wrong, have come to the logical conclusion of Anarchism as best conducive to ideas of freedom and liberty.

I have changed my mind about things over the course of my journey in philosophy. I can say that I was once a staunch conservative that upheld moderately Christian values and I was patriotic about my country. I had some sympathy to Socialist ideas of redistribution and collectivism. As I 'progressed,' or rather , I like to think of it as progressing , I came to the philosophy of libertarianism. Libertarianism, the idea that you should have the freedom from coercion and coercive relationships while keeping your hands to yourself basically. As a logical extension of libertarianism , I came to identify as an anarchist. True, at one time , in certain parts of the world , libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and its not hard to see why.

I have a conception of a free society involving voluntary choices , free markets , non-coercive social bodies of collective decision making, and a sort of polycentric , stateless order. This is not to say I don't expect problems and disputes to arise , its almost guaranteed that they will since humans will seemingly always find something to dispute about , but I believe a society can solve these problems without the necessity of institutionalized monopolistic violence such which embodies the State.

There is a long list of those who have influenced my thinking. Far too many to name briefly. But just to name a few: Murray Rothbard, Benjamin Tucker , Josiah Warren, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Roderick Long , Kevin Carson , and many others.

I hope you will find value in this blog.