This is what Anarchy is All About.

July 5, 2010 by Yadra Voat
Filed under: Introduction, Video, Your Evolution

It has been said of anarchism/voluntarism—the idea no group can be given greater rights than its members if all members are beings of equal moral nature—that it is the effort to build the first human civilization. (Keene being very much an epicenter of that transformation in human thought.)

Thanks to a liberty activist posting on Facebook a reference to a particular academic presentation, I became aware that a certain speaker (Jeremy Rifkin) at the British Royal Society for the Arts has done a far more credible job articulating that perspective than I could presently hope to.

Further, having done a small spot of research into it myself, I found that RSAnimate also did an excellent exception of the total talk, further encapsulating and better communicating the topic even more so.

[Viewer-discretion advisory: this animation contains some cartoonish nudity in scientific context.]

…and finally, here is the talk in its entirety:

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

PatK

Thank you Ian.

Yadra Voat

@PatK, Re:

Thank you Ian.

Submitted on 2010/07/06 at 12:10am

I’m puzzled as to the nature of this comment. Ian was not involved in the production or content of my blog post. If this was meant in jest as a reference to Ian’s influence on my thinking or choice of words (e.g. “voluntarist”), then perhaps an emoticon would be in-order.

Lord Metroid

Anarchism is not Voluntaryism! Voluntaryism has a thin stack of moral values while Anarchism has a thick stack of moral values.

Voluntaryism finds any interaction between humans to be acceptable as long as they are voluntary. However Anarchism do not find voluntary interactions to be sufficient for it to be a moral interaction of the parties. Anarchism finds other oppressive milieus to be abhorent such as unequalities of the Capitalist Boss and his employees. Sexual differences and hierarchies, racism, etc. Furthermore while Voluntaryism seems to have no objection to property rights similar to what exists today. Anarchist do as they recognize the feodalism in the nature of landlord and renter.
slayerboy

Voluntaryism is a sub-section of Anarchism. I am an Anarchist, but some would call me a voluntaryist more than an Anarchist. Labels suck. I just want no government and equality (the realization that no human being is better than the other and referencing this through our actions and words) so that we can all have peace finally.
http://dailyanarchist.com Seth

As much as I liked that top video, I think it is safe to say Jeremy Rifkin is no anarchist or voluntaryist.

I think we will head towards a more empathic society that encompasses the whole world and it will either lead to, or be the result of, the destruction of the state.

But I believe Rifkin is guilty of recognizing problems while coming to false solutions, both environmentally and politically.
Yadra Voat

@Seth: Quite so! Rifkin’s statism becomes clear when one examines the lengthier video and observes that he suggests buildings be made into distributed power plants…while referencing his working with the European Union to direct several billions of <acronym title="European Central Bank notes">EBN</acronym> (€) toward such efforts. And where does all that “money” come from? ORZ
Paul

Labels suck. I'm especially not fond of the "anarchist" label. Frankly, Lord, that may be what "anarchism" means to you, but I guarantee it's not what anarchism means to 99.5% of people. To 90% of people, "anarchist" means a guy throwing a brick through a starbucks window. Even I, who am fairly well versed in libertarian thought have never heard anyone claim "anarchism" implies anti-sexism or anti-racism. It means "without ruler". That's it. I definitely think you're absolutely wrong to claim that those who call themselves "voluntaryists" approve of sexism or racism. That's an absolutely, demonstrably false statement, almost a smear (although voluntaryist's certainly would not use violence as a solution to these problems). And while "mutualists" or perhaps some who would call themselves "left-libertarians" oppose the existance of employer-employee relationships, I've heard many who call themselves "anarchists" support it.

I really think it's time we give up on all these labels. Just say what you believe, and let your ideas stand on their own merits.

This presentation was excellent. I do believe people are naturally empathetic. The way to optimize society is to allow free choice among individuals. As soon as you centralize power, you invite the most power-hungry and least empathetic to take those reigns. The greatest evil, through history, is never perpetrated by an entire society of evil people. It is perpetrated by masses of otherwise decent people who have allowed themselves to become tools of a few evil men.

It's time we break those reigns, by which many men become the tools of a few — because the men who seek and obtain those reigns of power are invariably the very worst among us.
Jody

I like those RSA talks, I like this one even more. As for labels, they are usually the realm of the non-confident/low self-esteem crowd or government statist who feel the need to classify others. I am so sick of the word Anarchist, the media uses it like I use ketchup, on everything.

If the embed doesn't work, sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&fe…