How do you falsify Hobbes?
This is what I mean, actually. There is no reason to believe it until we can come up with an answer to this. It’s the same as any wild claim or what if.
Anarchism can be seen and tested in the various aspects of the world which exist anarchistically. For instance, much of life exists without the state or coercion. Somehow things get done. It’s like magic! And even governments exist in a state of anarchy with each other. We are simply in a state of broken anarchy.
People experience anarchy all the time. But I don’t think there is any way around it. The best thing is to create an ethical anarchism and convince people of its suitability. Which I think liberal democracy sort of gets. Moreso than Hobbes. I think liberal democracy tends to think they are in control, which is the only reason they support it. But I would say that they should only support a real system in which they are free. Not a phoney one.
What I say about liberal democracy being different is that few people today will agree to the idea that a centralized ruler should have absolute power. And that any check on power, parliament or personal, should be a challenge to it. I think people today are influenced more by Locke. That people have certain rights. And there are to be checks and balances instead of a monopoly. Which is where I think the current system actually gets in trouble: by claiming this, but knowing it is impossible at the same time.
collaboration
Searching…
Searching…