💾 Archived View for twentytwo.town › ~rooney › horizontal.gmi captured on 2024-12-17 at 11:31:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-09-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The closest ideology I can call 'home' is anarchism. It strives for free association and against heirarchy, Many who would consider themselves anarchists argue heirarchy is the root of domination.
There are more than a handful of nuances to the political philosophy of anarchism (individual vs. social, materialist vs. existentialist, etc.) but one of the key things that draws me to appreciate the unalienable tenets held here (outside of general distate for authority) is how well seated the answers from it are in response to a wide array of worldviews.
One of my favorites is how anarchism addresses both commonly held opposing beliefs for the "human nature" argument. I don't really know where I sit on the "are human inherently rational, or inhernitly irrational?" question, and in fact I find it to be an annoying question that is very loaded. There are too many other questions to ask as a reponse to this. But let's address it here, because when someone wants to discount the idea of a horizontal order for something, and argues that "we need a leader/leviathan to survive", they often dig this predicament out from their pockets.
The answer to "humans are inherently rational" here is: then why would you want a central leader or small group of people making decisions for (often a massive) amount of other perfectly rational people, instead of them doing that for themselves?
The answer to "humans are inherently irrational" here is: then why would you want a central leader or small group of completely non-rational people making these decisions instead of us naturally getting through things both autonomously and cooperatively?