24:25 "Anarchists believe that it is legitimate and just to restrict #freedom if [the] freedom [in question] would destroy the very freedom from which freedom itself arises..." +anarchopac This
is what I see very critical, even though I seem to understand the basic ethical insight underlying this idea.
I don't even think we have to restrict freedom(s), to preserve our (essential) freedom.
That even sounds contradictory. I mean: There will always be conflicts and people will simply defend their freedom in acts of self-defense, if they are being threatened by aggressive, destructive and obtrusive behavior. But if we build up structures for authoritarian intervention, that would serve as "Guardians of Freedom", then such structures of control and intervention would (for quite obvious reasons) pose the greatest threat to freedom, anyway.
I think that we can (and we should) avoid the risk of losing our essential social and individual freedom.
In order to provide a stable foundation for the optimal preservation of social and individual freedom, we basically only have to enable people to act consistently upon free will, that is: according to their own ethical and moral insights.
We have to ask the question:
Under what kind of circumstances are our social and individual freedoms actually threatened?
I think that a constant threat for freedom is a lack of choice, that will always come up when people are somehow exposed to natural adversities, social conflicts, isolation or systemic structural pressures... What we always have to avoid are relationships of heteronomy or situations of dependency that may require subordination to the will of others... and the exposure to adverse circumstances which lead people to frustration and despair...
So, to preserve true and honest social and individual freedom, we have to create a constantly high level of "social awareness"... that means we should always communicate openly, respectfully and honestly... we should clearly convey our basic motives, our wishes and desires/ what we want or what we don't want.
Essentially open communication/ transparent interaction, respect and solidarity
could be understood as a simple and basic formula
for social horizons, based on the idea of "free will"/ "Voluntarism" and "Anarchy".
If we consistently stick to these principles, we may never even experience the need to restrict freedoms in order to preserve freedoms.
Anyone who stubbornly acts in discord to these principles of free and open interaction will have to face public embarrassment. But as long as the principles of openness, respect and solidarity prevail, even outsiders, critics and people who refuse to conform to these basic ideals will always be accepted and supported. Every one who experiences frustration and rejection can become a threat for peace and freedom.
Therefore we are (indeed) responsible for the preservation of social and individual freedom in our everyday behavior.
The more we stick to our ideals and principles, the better we can provide a stable foundation for a free and open society.
This is basically also, why I think that Anarcho-Capitalism cannot work:
The whole idea of economic power and economic compensation is far too restrictive, too coercive and leads to a constant climate of social distress, conflict, rivalry, delimitation and frustration.
As market participants we're constantly confronted with a dilemma of motivation:
Far too often, do we have to compromise between our ethical insights and our interests as market participants competing for profit. Furthermore, market and trade advantages are mostly based on asymmetries of information, which is why we always find reasons to avoid open communication and transparency, in market relationships.
The whole market exchange system is actually a framework of economic control and manipulation/ of implied moral condemnation/ of retribution and revenge. We don't need this. It complicates our coexistence and our interaction.
And this is why we have to get rid of this sad paradigm of rivalry and delimitation.
The threat of losing our freedom is far less immanent, if people's minds and hearts are free from structural pressures and incentives provided by a system of economic compensation and justification.
To dissolve structures of economical interest and market power, we of course need to offer support to one another, without asking for a reward or payment. But I'm quite confident that we can learn to shift our social paradigm.
We can learn to interact freely, to support one another in openness, respect and solidarity.
The "social web" can help a lot in this cultural transformation process!
We have to break the spell of venality and will corruption, by offering options for a life beyond market interests, that is worthwhile living.
We are already on our way in creating a culture of openness, transparency, mutual aid and voluntary contribution.
Let's move on! ;)