Facebook Dialogue part 27

I became Facebook friends with a young person who is really into punk rock.  That unto itself is worth a post because I am in the bad school on the wrong side of the tracks, and Punk Rockers are not common at all.  I asked him how he came about with his anti government view, which I saw on his FB page, and he said it was the music he was into.  Of course it made me feel old because he's interested in the late 1970's and 1980's Punk bands.  He thought it was great that I was alive during those times - I didn't have the heart to tell him about the fashions of the day...

A couple of days later he put up a post that was "F*** Racism. Fascism. Sexism. Nationalism. Anti-Semites. Homophobia. Nazi Punks. Transphobia. Control. Religious War. All War. -- Teach Peace and Anarchy."

I responded with: "just about, if not all of the 'isms' are a bad joke"
He responded with: "I know, a very bad joke indeed."

Here is where it gets interesting.  A friend of his came back with this: "Anarchy and peace don't go together as long as people with independent thought are in the mix"

I thought this was odd - how can a person see independent thinking people and independent thought as anything but positive?  How would independent thought hurt the cause of peace?  So I came back with this: "Anarchy and peace go perfectly together as independent thinkers don't need a Rancher to run their lives or whip them into a frenzy."

Then he came with what, under normal circumstances would be seen as a conversation stopper - a long response with some decent points, but not quite good enough: "Independent thinkers don't need someone to run their lives, that's true, but that doesn't mean that they'll agree to non-violence or even non-prejudice. Many wars and prejudices occur because of independent thought. In an anarchy, there would be no way to fight racism because people who have racist views would act on them without repercussion, and unfortunately that's a large group of people. Anarchy breeds violence and prejudice, because that is part of the human condition. Without a societal structure to have an open and safe discourse on the subjects that need to be improved upon, things will not be improved upon; in fact, things will mostly just devolve."

I jumped all over this - especially the last part: "Devolve into the way things are now? I think the current state of affairs, with the violent and rapacious drug / prison industrial complex, military industrial complex, regulatory thicket blocking the poor - - these things make your argument lose a lot of steam. Freedom is the answer - to think that a 'societal structure' will somehow stop racism - it can only do it by force, which defeats the whole purpose. Gov't is an opinion with a badge and a gun, nothing more, nothing less. You're arguing from an outcome, not an ethical stance."

I thought the person's focus on racism was odd.  The Gov't and their media lapdogs push the racism angle in order to keep the Proles arguing among themselves, but I'm willing to play ball and debate with that as an example...  Then I got this in return:

"I'm not saying that it's perfect how it is now, but I'm saying that anarchy and peace won't happen together. In theory, it sounds great. The problem is that not everyone has the same morals and not everyone will agree not to use violence. Anarchy and peace only work if everyone thinks the same way, but that's not how people work. Everyone thinks differently, everyone has their own view on things, and that's one of the things that makes us great. Sure, the current government has problems, but just because it has problems doesn't mean you should abolish it altogether. What is wrong, ethically, with having a social structure or governing authority?"

I was a little off put by the term 'social structure' - that is a term that is vague enough to be scary.  I came back with this: "Good question - because a governing authority can only enforce things through force. Governments use badges, guns, prison cells, confiscations and threats to enforce their mandates. The non-aggression principle that governs the (admittedly utopian) anarchist / libertarian world takes care of what you speak of. The principle is that one cannot use force unless it is perpetrated unto you. With that principle held, a free people, regardless of how they think, will live and prosper. If people have dark, sick, racist thoughts and ways, then free people will shun them. If they are bad rapacious businessmen or teachers or whomever then a free people will ignore them and the free market will get them to change their habits - or it won't and they'll have to figure it out on their own. I think the 'social structure' you speak of would emerge in smaller communities - among people who think alike and wish to live a certain way (possibly how the Mormons do their thing now). But if people are free to leave and move, then everyone can be a free agent. Anarchy is simply no central authority that uses force to do the "right" thing. That thinking has turned the USA into the horror show it is today, with the killing machine gov't it has today."

This young person is keen enough to ask questions of someone who is able to parry and confront his questions - this is why I kept going with the dialogue.  So far this is where it stands so far.  The young people are more willing to ask questions and debate, I've found out over the past few years.  This video would be helpful to this person, and many other young people: