Morality of Statism and Anarchism
I'm trying to develop ways to explain to people the morality of different positions of various degrees.
I could try and explain indefinitely what I'm talking about, but most people won't read my entire shit, so here's an overview:
Statism (Capitalism) - It is the duty of the government to protect the property of the people, to regulate the property of the people, and to direct service if need be. This type of Statism includes Fascism (if allowing for private property) and Corporatism. It is not a definite scale and can include Socialist aspects.
Statism (Socialism) - It is the duty of the government to Nationalize all goods and services. The people are employed by the government and the government regulates pretty much everything. Fascism and Corporatism can still exist within a quasi-socialist country, however there would be less regard for private property. Often State endorsed Monopolies would be more Socialistic than Capitalistic even though it is Corporatist.
Anarchism (Capitalism) - The people abide by contract and property rights while not coercing others (murder, thievery, etc.) Law is common law. All human action is voluntary. In the realm of this area are Libertarians, Voluntaryists, Anarcho-Capitalists.
Anarchism (Socialism) - The people work as a collective to ensure the progression of society. No one can own land or natural resources. Law is to do what is good for the collective. Theoretically no heirarchies in order to ensure Anarchism. This includes Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Socialists, Marxists.
Other aspects of these things to note:
Constitutionalism - Specific rights can not be infringed. If a state exists, the state will have boundaries.
Democracy - Many to all decisions are made by a majority vote. If a state exists, this could allow for a Republic.
Consider that societies could be high in Constitutionalism AND Democracy, or low in either, or high in one and low in the other.
I've been quite busy and will only be much busier in the next few years, but part of my political writings (which ironically are just a hobby) will be to help others understand the arguments and morality of people who identify as many of these various spectrum created ideologies. Now, what is in this debate only reflects a very brief overview of what I intend to expand on over the next few years in my free time writing. But I'm merely curious what you all have to say about how you identify.
|
1
point
1
point
Anarcho-Captialism is of the highest morality because not only does it constitute absolute voluntary action, but it allows man to pursue self interests without the interference of an third party whereas Statism is the opposite with the lowest morality because not only does it promise violence in the marketplace, but it also promises violence from man pursuing self interests. 1
point
Anarchism (Socialism) - The people work as a collective to ensure the progression of society. No one can own land or natural resources. Law is to do what is good for the collective. Theoretically no heirarchies in order to ensure Anarchism. This includes Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Socialists, Marxists. I accept this one. As for the satanism the satanists always seem to raise a more logical argument (as logical as a religious one can be) than the Christians, catholics and Jewish people. So I like that one too. The only label you presented that I would accept without serious reservations would be constitutionalism, and while I don't particularly disagree with what you've said about it, I do find your description...how shall I say....overly condensed. I think that actual "in operation" political ideologies are far too complex, hybridized, and nuanced to be adequately addressed by these simplistic "ism" labels, and the volumes written about them don't exactly clear things up. The way I look at my constitutionalism is that it's based on articles that I have chosen to live by. This is both my political philosophy, and my religion. I think that differing situations call for different measures of each of the governing methods you described, so what would you call that political philosophy? liberal hybridism? I think that differing situations call for different measures of each of the governing methods you described You'd be low in Constitutionism (or alism) in this case. Not that you'd be very low, but to be very high would assume very strict barriers and a finely set way of government from the beginning. An amendable constitution is likely, and depending on who can amend the constitution would determine your views on Democracy. Are the people responsible? Responsible via Representatives? Not responsible at all? Also, is the Constitution government law or common law? Depends on your level of Statism-Anarchism. 1
point
|
