Am I an Anarchist?

[Cherub786]

I’d like to have a discussion with anyone that has an interest in political theory.
Presently I am taking a course on political science in college. Whereas previously I was quite apolitical and apathetic to politics, from this course I discovered a whole new dimension to life which I am keen to explore.
I think my politics tend toward anarchism or anti-statism. I want maximum individual liberty from the corrosive state. I have no respect for the concept of the modern nation state, the social contract, and the rule of law.
Over time, the state has grown more powerful while people are less and less free. Religious liberty is specifically on a steep decline. Daily I read news reports of how religious freedoms are being curtailed in the name of security, social order and cohesiveness, in places like communist, atheist China, authoritarian Russia, autocratic Middle Eastern states and even supposedly secular Europe.

[no one]

Can I call you Johnny Rotten?

[The Grand Nudger]

[Cherub786]

Hmm, I was hoping for some intelligent conversation and engagement. I am looking for an academic discussion on political theory.

Just because I lean toward anarchism doesn’t mean I am a punk or thug. As I explained, I feel that anarchism or at least libertarianism is best suited to protect religious liberty in an increasingly authoritarian world where religious minorities are vulnerable in illiberal democracies.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’d like to have a discussion with anyone that has an interest in political theory.
Presently I am taking a course on political science in college. Whereas previously I was quite apolitical and apathetic to politics, from this course I discovered a whole new dimension to life which I am keen to explore.
I think my politics tend toward anarchism or anti-statism. I want maximum individual liberty from the corrosive state. I have no respect for the concept of the modern nation state, the social contract, and the rule of law.
Over time, the state has grown more powerful while people are less and less free. Religious liberty is specifically on a steep decline. Daily I read news reports of how religious freedoms are being curtailed in the name of security, social order and cohesiveness, in places like communist, atheist China, authoritarian Russia, autocratic Middle Eastern states and even supposedly secular Europe.

Now that the above is out of the way...allow me to suggest that you do have respect for the notion of a social contract, as personal liberty is a part of that.  Aside from that contract to personal liberty all that you can expect is your neighbors cruel boot on your neck while they take "liberties" with you, your things, and your loved ones.

The rule of law exists in huge part due to most peoples inability to enforce the social contract individually.  Do you have confidence in the idea that you could keep my cruel boot off your neck, or would it be preferable to have some third party to call for help when the need arises?

It seems, and this is just me trying to unpack your comments..that you are disgusted with abuses of those institutions and authorities, not so much with the very existence of those things. If they weren't so damned abusive it would be np.

[no one]

Is that a yes?

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an addendum, I'm not particularly concerned with religious liberties, noting that the majority of people are..indeed..religious, and have those liberties, except insomuch as other religious assholes seek to strip them of the same or that they themselves dearly wish to do that to another.

[Cherub786]

I’d like to have a discussion with anyone that has an interest in political theory.
Presently I am taking a course on political science in college. Whereas previously I was quite apolitical and apathetic to politics, from this course I discovered a whole new dimension to life which I am keen to explore.
I think my politics tend toward anarchism or anti-statism. I want maximum individual liberty from the corrosive state. I have no respect for the concept of the modern nation state, the social contract, and the rule of law.
Over time, the state has grown more powerful while people are less and less free. Religious liberty is specifically on a steep decline. Daily I read news reports of how religious freedoms are being curtailed in the name of security, social order and cohesiveness, in places like communist, atheist China, authoritarian Russia, autocratic Middle Eastern states and even supposedly secular Europe.

Now that the above is out of the way...allow me to suggest that you do have respect for the notion of a social contract, as personal liberty is a part of that.  Aside from that contract to personal liberty all that you can expect is your neighbors cruel boot on your neck while they take "liberties" with you, your things, and your loved ones.

The rule of law exists in huge part due to most peoples inability to enforce the social contract individually.  Do you have confidence in the idea that you could keep my cruel boot off your neck, or would it be preferable to have some third party to call for help when the need arises?

It seems, and this is just me trying to unpack your comments..that you are disgusted with abuses of those institutions and authorities, not so much with the very existence of those things.  If they weren't so damned abusive it would be np.

I feel there should be an option for individuals and groups to withdraw from a social contract that we have all been born into and had no other alternative but to live with. This simply means withdrawing from the present social contract and forming new ones.
Furthermore, my political philosophy is based on the idea that human beings are fundamentally good and do not arbitrarily inflict violence on one another. Violence, however, is inherent to the state. A human individual will generally become violent if he finds himself in very desperate circumstances, and especially if he has no appreciation for individual liberty.
I am contemptuous of the state and its institutions, but feel that it is a design flaw, and the solution is to have a less omnipresent state with very limited functions. Though this ideal is conceivable in societies that fundamentally cherish individual freedom and possess the nerve to fight for it, even if that entails considerable inconvenience.

---

-as an addendum, I'm not particularly concerned with religious liberties, noting that the majority of people are..indeed..religious, and have those liberties, except insomuch as other religious assholes seek to strip them of the same or that they themselves dearly wish to do that to another.

It depends where you are. Throughout most of this planet religious liberty is severely curtailed. Just look at the largest nation in the world (communist China). They are literally forcing millions of Uighurs in “re-education camps”, where they are forced to sing praises to the Communist Party, forbidden from speaking their mother tongue, coerced to denounce their religion, force fed pork, and so on. Now admittedly this is an extreme example. In China, the Buddhist monks of Tibet and the Christian community are likewise severely repressed. Churches and religious groups require permission from the government to operate and are under close surveillance. But even in supposedly secular and liberal Europe you have restrictions on religious liberty, such as religious articles of clothing. The rise of far right populism is extremely alarming for religious minorities around the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

We all possess the ability to opt out of the social contract.  It's the legal contract that binds us.

You could haul yourself out into the woods and be a hermit and yell at people all day..just generally be a dick.  That would be opting out of the social contract.  You just can't do it on someone else's land.  As an advocate of personal liberty this much should be clear to you, I imagine.  

It might also be worthwhile to mention that whatever violence may be inherent to the state is still done at the behest of or in the interests of the people of that state..either collectively or invidually.  It's not arbitrary.  

Shit doesn't just happen, in gov, shit takes time and planning and people and money...lots and lots of money!

[Amarok]

Now that the above is out of the way...allow me to suggest that you do have respect for the notion of a social contract, as personal liberty is a part of that.  Aside from that contract to personal liberty all that you can expect is your neighbors cruel boot on your neck while they take "liberties" with you, your things, and your loved ones.

The rule of law exists in huge part due to most peoples inability to enforce the social contract individually.  Do you have confidence in the idea that you could keep my cruel boot off your neck, or would it be preferable to have some third party to call for help when the need arises?

It seems, and this is just me trying to unpack your comments..that you are disgusted with abuses of those institutions and authorities, not so much with the very existence of those things.  If they weren't so damned abusive it would be np.

I feel there should be an option for individuals and groups to withdraw from a social contract that we have all been born into and had no other alternative but to live with. This simply means withdrawing from the present social contract and forming new ones.
Furthermore, my political philosophy is based on the idea that human beings are fundamentally good and do not arbitrarily inflict violence on one another. Violence, however, is inherent to the state. A human individual will generally become violent if he finds himself in very desperate circumstances, and especially if he has no appreciation for individual liberty.
I am contemptuous of the state and its institutions, but feel that it is a design flaw, and the solution is to have a less omnipresent state with very limited functions. Though this ideal is conceivable in societies that fundamentally cherish individual freedom and possess the nerve to fight for it, even if that entails considerable inconvenience.

---

-as an addendum, I'm not particularly concerned with religious liberties, noting that the majority of people are..indeed..religious, and have those liberties, except insomuch as other religious assholes seek to strip them of the same or that they themselves dearly wish to do that to another.

It depends where you are. Throughout most of this planet religious liberty is severely curtailed. Just look at the largest nation in the world (communist China). They are literally forcing millions of Uighurs in “re-education camps”, where they are forced to sing praises to the Communist Party, forbidden from speaking their mother tongue, coerced to denounce their religion, force fed pork, and so on. Now admittedly this is an extreme example. In China, the Buddhist monks of Tibet and the Christian community are likewise severely repressed. Churches and religious groups require permission from the government to operate and are under close surveillance. But even in supposedly secular and liberal Europe you have restrictions on religious liberty, such as religious articles of clothing. The rise of far right populism is extremely alarming for religious minorities around the world.

Humans don't willingly inflict harm on each other Thomas Hobbes would like a word with you