posted by dennisn on August 24th, 2012 at 4:29PM

Beautiful writing. Beautiful man. I can't really think of any major disagreements I have with it. I wonder (not really) why he wasn't taught to us in State-schools.

So, he is making the case for anarchy / voluntaryism, focusing primarily on the ethical approach -- even though often it sounds like he's making a practical case for it. It can all be boiled down to a single sentence he says in (3-19): "to be strictly just, [the "State"] must have the sanction and consent of the governed." And by "the governed", he means the *individual* -- not some unreal abstraction. More specifically, he uses himself as the example of the non-consenting individual, when he was kidnapped and violently thrown into a cage by his neighbours (acting as State ambassadors) for "tax evasion". In (2-12) he humorously declares he wants to opt-out of absurd not-actually-contractual "social contracts".

Why didn't he consent? Who cares! The more important question is: does one have the right to withdraw consent/support? (With special emphasis placed on a withdrawal of *support* -- that is, real tangible support, namely in the form of "taxed" money, "practical support" as he calls it.) He asks the reader the fascinating question: what is the source of justice? Is it the law? The majority? Or is it something intrinsic within us all? (Spoiler alert: it's the latter. A more thorough analysis of this question was done by Molyneux in his book "Universally Preferrable Behaviour".) He asserts that "unjust laws exist" in (2-13), so, "shall we transgress them at once"? Or wait until we convince the majority?

Of course, judging by his "action from principle" (2-2) and his words, he believes (as do I) that we must transgress them at once. Evil ought not be tolerated. "If a [man] cannot live according to [his] nature, [he] dies", he says in (2-14). "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." (2-9) Someone once said (Socrates?) that it's better to suffer evil (be physically caged for tax evasion), than to do evil (pay taxes).

So, hurray to civil disobedience! Evade taxes! Fuck the State and be good :-). I feel inspired.

Link

Civil Disobedience
posted by jenni on August 24th, 2012 at 3:48PM

First let me say how much I dislike double negatives and the articulation of the 1800's. It is much to poetic for my tastes.

I have a teacher who told me once that sometimes you can hear something a thousand times but it will take 1001 repetitions to make it sink in to your thoughts, but when it does it becomes so simple that you can't understand why it did not sink in before. There were a few comments that did just that for me in this essay. At first, with most of these types of situations, I feel embarrassed that it never absorbed itself into my brain, then I realize one must not feel disconcerted, one should feel proud that they finally do understand.  

"The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war;"

Duh. Yet I read and reread this over and over thinking how unprincipled we really are as a people. His rhetoric throughout the essay about the need to be principled defines the common 'evil' amongst us. But we mustn't be principled only to benefit ourselves and ideologies we should acknowledge the masses and the fact that 'no man is an island.' Thinking of society as a machine dehumanizes others. I think this is (one of the many) an aspect of today's governments gone wrong.

So basically I have been contemplating about what needs to be done to become a conscious individual and how can I start writing essays that will make others feel the same way.

Link

Due this Friday 24th
posted by dennisn on August 20th, 2012 at 7:37AM

?

Link