Absurdism

[BlackUnicorn]

Well under a true anarchist system so long as people kept to their groups and people were allowed to leave those groups and join/create others without persecution or punishment, then the conflict in theory between religion and atheism would not exist as the religious would have no power/control over atheists and atheists no power/control over the religious. But the economic system* poses a problem in this case, as it is more than likely groups would have to interact and trade with each other for survival, so if in a community a religious group gained dominance over trade it could impose its will on other groups, including atheists through simple economics.

*Whether its Capitalist or Communist.

Im not sure if a "true" anarchist model even exists. Please dont think of this post as me putting words into your mouth either. I think humans, being the social creatures that they are, eventually create groups and try to dominate the lesser groups in the process. I dont see human groups, or most of them, standing by and allowing other groups to dwell... there is a sense of threat involved and that tends to create a reaction. Since we as humans allow our emotions to control us rather than logic (which is inhuman and sometimes contrary to our wants, intents and desires), we will never have a one nation govt. For the most part I agree with you on your post. I just disagree with you using the words "true anarchist model", as such a thing would equate that humans would do what they want, and many of them want to be the supreme authority of everything. Anarchy, like all other govt models, is still just as absurd. I think it may be less absurd in some cases and some times, but I imagine other absurdists may say it is more absurd. Anarchy is not immune to the absurd human condition when compared to this cosmos.

Because of this absurdity, I focus less on nebulous words such as "good and evil" and focus more on words such as "benevolent and malevolent". Intent can be either benevolent and malevolent. Good and evil are mere opinions. Benevolent being that which heals and supports life, Malevolent being that which harms and takes lives. And even this is faulty.. is it malevolent that humans must kill plants and animals to devour them in order to survive? This, to me, is a glaring proof that absurdity reigns.

SO I try to stick with Malevolent or benevolent as compared to humanism. Even then the philosophy is not perfect.

It depends who is dominant in the society, if a religious group was dominant then it is likely that anarchy would be based more around that religious group in how it functions. I prefer systems that make divisions between the economic system and the political system, and ideologies and religions, which is why my ideal is some adaption of Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Communism (with the end result of the end of the state, corporations and the worst of the economic system, and a new set of social contracts to replace the laws we are now governed under, education and all other functions of government including welfare would become the role of non-for profit community organizations).

As for humans in general, there will always be people who want to control or hurt others, unfortunately in order to restrain them they might have to be harmed in the process, there is no way to deal with it except education, punishment or exile. As for slavery and oppression they will always exist, slavery is after all relative to the individual and the group, same with oppression, so really I think you need a system that allows people to group among themselves and rule themselves (you can't really have that without light handed or loose government), but if you wanted to go so far as actual independence and form your own state, then so long as its your property and not other people's (or people) I don't see why not. The way I see things is that authority and the power that comes with it is there to be abused (there are very few kind hearted people), so it has to be limited as much as possible to provide a just system.