Comments by "Andrew Bowen" (@andrewbowen2837) on "Andrewism" channel.

Read "Emile" by Rousseau
4
If that were the case, you would see that social animals are indeed not as hippie-like as you make them sound. Take other apes, for instance: tribalism is something that exists in all animals, but in primates, it can lead to actual wars, such as with chimps. Additionally, apes are capable of inflicting extreme pain and suffering on each other with their hierarchies; Franz de Waal notes it with chimps (in his book Our Inner Ape, he reports a case of one male crushing the testes of an older one and leaving him to bleed out and die, within a zoo, where they are notably more tame), and Robert Sapolsky notes it with baboons (with his studies on stress levels in apes). Gorillas, as polygamous species, follow suit, with the silverback monopolizing mating resources and harming other males to prevent competition. But then there is the counter example of social grooming (even though the apes with higher status are groomed more often) as a bonding event within groups, exogamy, and of course, bonobos who are much less violent and use sex as a means of solving issues, fitting the bill of a hippie status, hence their nickname as such. Humans are capable of following through each of these behaviors. We are complex and have hormones and social needs and cues that guide behaviors. As such, it would seem that we need to take into account the capability of both types of behaviors instead of focusing on one or the other for political reasons. It is my opinion that much of it could be subject to the social milieu in which we are born, yet there will always be that biological factor that underlies behaviors that needs to find a responsible outlet, something our society has failed to account for.
3
Acting as if violence and warfare isn't something just as common, both in the archaeological record and in other animals. Like Andrewism says at the beginning, humans both create and destroy. They're capable of the most charitable acts, while at the same time being capable of genocide. Both are just as natural
2
Humans are not rational
1
@romanr1592 no, you say humans are rational actors, when they aren't. Humans aren't machines. Also, regulatory mechanisms don't exist as a form of government, but as cultural norms and values. It's impossible to not have these things. But it is not a result from a state, which means it does fit with anarchism at its most bare bones
1
@romanr1592 you've got this idea that anarchism somehow means licentiousness, or acting without any sort of regulation period. That's not at all what it means; it only seeks to place human life back into a context without a state, no more, no less. If you were to look up each form of anarchism, they each have some way to make decisions and to guide life. However, power is always back into the hands of the people directly in one form or another. I already acknowledged in my previous reply that it's impossible for humans to live in such a way as to not have values, customs, mores, etc. that guide their living. Plus, there will always be the laws of physics and logic that govern all things. This idea you've got in your head is not accurate to anarchism. And yes, customs and majorities can be just as tyrannical as any state potentially, but they also leave room for a more beneficent approach as well. I fail to see how my stating that humans are not rational does not prove my case, or how it applies to my case whatsoever. The major ideologies of our time, Marxism, Capitalism, and Science, view humans as acting in rational self interest, or homo economicus. Game theory assumes the same thing, otherwise you would have no basis to infer human behavior on. The thing is, people are apt to do things that are harmful, or picking things that would be less beneficial than the alternatives. For instance, why am I here, typing this out to you, when I could be reading for my thesis? The cost-benefit analysis approach would make everyone act as a machine. But as Dostoyevsky says, men are not keys to a piano. These theories do not factor in fun, play, emotions, ADHD, procrastination, religious fervor, or whatever else may guide people away from their material benefit. In truth, humans are not so predictable, and any theory that seeks to oversimplify human behavior fails to acknowledge the irrationality inherent within, simply because it's not always possible to predict it. So when you want to predict that anarchism will always fail because someone will act in rational self interest and seize power, you first must assume that it would be in their interest at all to attain power, much less that it would even be beneficial, especially since societies without states had levelling mechanisms to prevent such things from occurring, and the values to back it up.
1
@romanr1592 human rights are a product of the liberal worldview, provided by governments and used as a means of colonialism and globalism. I shed no tears for losing any of those things you mentioned. Self sufficiency is the way human existence was meant to be. Living in the lap of luxury has only allowed us to gaze into the abyss, and flirt with armageddon. It has led to the proliferation of horrific events throughout history. Our species evolved to live a semi-sedentary, communal lifestyle. We are still suffering through not being adapted to a technical and automated environment, and it causes a plethora of health issues. Yet, technology and societies advance, but the human remains the same, faced with a world in which they cannot achieve a higher purpose or happiness, alienated from such concepts. Perhaps my form of anarchism is more conservative than someone like Andrewism because I hold human rights to be utter fabrications and nonsense, just another form of bourgeois ideology. Instead, I let the facts of existence speak for themselves, bleak as it may be for our civilization. We must either evolve into something beyond humans through scientific and technological means, return to our evolved and natural state of being through a great sacrifice of luxuries, or face a slow and crippling doom. Only the latter seems plausible. You didn't ask for such a tirade, but it's 3am and I'm in the New York state of mind
1
@romanr1592 there's nothing more brutal than the atrocities we saw in the 20th century. Nor have we evolved to be discontent - you attribute modern qualities to humans of the past. Western civilization has existed for a mere 5000 years or so; that is just a blink of an eye on the evolutionary scale. The human of today looks almost identical to the humans back then, yet the cultures do not. The idea of property has not always existed, and is just a fabrication of our culture. The idea of progress is something we have only seen in the past 500 years, and look at the damage it has caused. None of this is fantasy; there are psychological and biological articles aplenty about the evolutionary mismatch with the current environment. Should it not be a person's imperative to acknowledge this and postulate attempts at reconciliation? Is it worse to be dragged back into the woods, or to be dragged into oblivion?
1
@romanr1592 communes are what anarchists propose. You act as if there wouldn't be any means of propping up those with ill health or whatever. And people wouldn't kill themselves in such a lifestyle as much as they do working 12 hour days for 6 days per week now, just to scrape by.
1
@romanr1592 showing how much you don't know about such communities then. It's not asking people to stop using technology, and even without such tools, people did not work as much 200 years ago as they do now; and that's not even looking at hunter-gatherer societies that worked even less
1
Ah, but that "safety" point can be manipulated very easily. It can turn into an oppressive force quickly, and is often the excuse used for enforcing measures
1
@FoxyFemBoi unless, of course, that person wanted to get hit. Then by tackling them, you have removed their autonomy. Either way, by preventing such an action, you impede on freedom. If the child wants to stick their finger on a hot stove, let them; they won't do it again. Alexis de Tocqueville spends many a page discussing a democratic and free approach to society, versus a more authoritarian but quickly built society, i.e. telling or ordering people instead of letting them find out through experience. Though it may prove more dangerous and take a longer time to develop for the former, it always is ultimately the better approach. That being said, this doesn't mean I want to let a child unknowingly kill themselves. Rousseau provides a good example of how to do this in Emile
1
@FoxyFemBoi so how does being depressed remove autonomy? Who determines that? Are you saying that people with mental health issues should not have agency? Isn't treating people with mental health issues differently reinforcing the hierarchy of "normal" people? Furthermore, you want to tie autonomy into rationality; in other words, you think someone only is allowed autonomy when they are capable of rationally making decisions. Who determines when that is? I further challenge you and ask: how often are we actually rational? Or are we more inclined to act on gut impulse and then rationalize our decisions afterwards? And is hyperrationality good in the first place? To add on one more thing as an edit here: the "competency" thing of an expert is an appeal to authority fallacy, is it not? Plus, that line of thinking only applies if the expert has our best interest in mind, but how can we prove that? Is it fair to just assume they always do? Lastly, if a community imposes their will to inhibit individual autonomy, that is no better than living under a dictator. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter if it's from one person or from many. Majoritarian democracy is just as bad, if not worse, than a dictatorship. Going against the social mores is damaging to the soul and suffocates any individual thinking or behavior, whereas going against a dictator harms the flesh but allows individual thinking. Alexis de Tocqueville discusses this plenty in Democracy in America. So is it really an anarchist society if 51% of the community does something the other 49% doesn't agree to? If my community all agree to go lynch someone and I am the only one who disagrees, am I somehow obligated to follow the crowd?
1
@FoxyFemBoi dogmatic to democracy, are we? If you refuse to see how letting a majority run rampant is a detriment, there's no point in arguing. Do you want autonomy or not? The only way you get autonomy in a majoritarian democracy is if you just so happen to follow the herd. Otherwise, you get ostracized and silenced, which in a democratic society, are worse than death. I have yet to do any slippery slopes. I've asked questions to test your premises. When you reply "anarchists wouldn't allow that specific example," you don't address the question of your premise. I could change the example repeatedly. The core of the issue is, should you blindly follow the majority, even if they go against your wishes? How often do mobs act rationally, since that is your standard? When it comes to trusting the experts, how far would you follow that logic? If there is someone who has studied political science and law, would you consider them an expert in said field? And if so, should we then allow them to lead because they would know how to do it better than anyone else? Again, how can we trust that experts at anything have our best interests at heart? Lastly, I fail to see the purpose of making accusations of political ideology, as if they negate arguments. Are we partaking in ad hominem? So what the founding fathers were ambivalent to democracy? Everyone prior to the red scare felt the same way. Do you think perhaps they had a reason for thinking such? The only way to prevent the majority from imposing on the majority would be to have small communities and consensus. Is it possible? Who knows anymore
1
@FoxyFemBoi I'll just tell you, I'm not consistent or coherent at all for a reason. All I've done is provide challenges
1
Most orthodox anarchists are dogmatic to individualism, but do you think there is any way to preserve the benefits of a communitarian lifestyle while retaining individual autonomy? Also, do you think that ontological categories and "boxes" (i.e. dichotomies and classificatory schemes) are oppressive and anti-anarchistic?
1