More important than opposition to the current system is the prefiguration of an anarchic one. So much online discourse is about attacking, a lot less is about building. I drew this to remind myself and others that confronting the state is only a part of the puzzle and building new systems without it is also important.
Licence (as always): CC-0, No rights reserved.
Representative democracy is beholden to the majority. if they majority voted to kill you, would you just accept it and let them?
Also who are the members? what chooses who is and isn’t a member of this body that has the right to your life? A made up line in the sand? Why do I have to rely on the opinion of someone who could be half a continent away? The only people I want to be held accountable to are the ones that I have to interact with, because others don’t know me, and they shouldn’t have any say on whether or not I get to live.
Anarchy is exactly what you say: being held accountable by other members of your society. It just doesn’t try and mash millions of people with different viewpoints together and shrug when they inevitably start killing each other. It allows for dynamic formation of groups that think alike and uses the overlaps to build a network of people.
What is morality if not the belief of the majority? The only other option is actionable morality of the few, leading to tribalism and fuedalism.
Morality is the cultural baseline of acceptability and culture isn’t dictated by the majority. If a culture diverges it is two separate cultures. Nighter could be considered the majority. This is the point I’m trying to make, instead of having a single group of people and trying to find compromises why not just have multiple groups living their lives and cooperating when needed? Why do you need this single entity to manage these wildly different people?
But my question stands: If the majority of people in your country voted to have you killed, would you let them kill you?
If a group thinks people of different skin color should be killed to remove them from the gene pool then by your definition they would be in the moral right.
I am of the opinion that those people are morally wrong.
If we disagree in this then you’re intolerant and you therefor cannot be tolerated.
This is the topic of absolute or relative morality, here is my take.
In that groups moral reference frame they would be morally right, but it wouldn’t change how I’d react. I wouldn’t agree with them or share their morals but I also know I couldn’t change their morals. Instead I would do whatever I could to remove any POC from the grasp of the group and arm them for protection. They would consider that morally wrong. I consider it morally right, because I believe everyone has the right to live. After that I’d probably try and build a barrier around them to stop them from hurting others.
At the end of the day actions matter a lot more than beliefs. It doesn’t really matter what I believe, only what actions I take.
Or to but it differently I also believe those people are morally wrong. I also believe they think they’re morally right. And as I don’t place my own opinions over others I cannot say who is right. I can only act in the way I believe is right.
To reiterate: I believe those people are wrong. They are claiming another persons right to exist and that goes against my beliefs. I would to anything I could to stop them. But I also know that’s my moral position. It’s not theirs. But it doesn’t matter, I do what I believe is right.
But in the end it doesn’t matter. My actions would not change even if I believed they were morally wrong. I still act according to my moral position. So what difference does it make whether I believe it’s the only one or one of many?
Desperately trying to phrase this in a way that makes my point come across because this is a very delicate topic, and communicating in text isn’t my strong suit.