Ok, we live without society in a village without laws or taxes. We told her not to do it but she did anyway. Should we kill her retarted kid instead of supporting it and letting it become a burden on our villages food supply?
Law and rules can and do exist with or without the state. These laws may be social or natural, even without community guidelines or politics.
While we cannot eliminate drug addicts we can certainly reduce them by raising our standard of living and reducing violence and abuse (especially against children).
This will allow us merely to reduce heroin/meth addicts. The next step is prevention. Legalized drug use with needle exchange programs (private non-profit )to reduce disease and offer free birth control(preferably something like depo-provera where the junky doesn't need to remember taking the pill). OK , now much less incidents , but there will always be some crazy bitch , perhaps schizophrenic, perhaps she wants a child, who knows, but it will happen... what's next? After she has the child the community should monitor her and non-profits should be free to help her and the child or not, and offer to find a family who wishes to adopt a child if the junky is being grossly negligent or is tired of the responsibility. None of this needs to involve welfare , taxes, or forcing you to be involved. There are plenty of people like myself who understand the implications of the situation and are willing to donate time and money to prevent such societal problems.
I love theoretical debates about perfect societies but Ross is creating junkies right now. What do we do immediately?
I came down harsh because the name you use would indicate some degree of thought outside of the left/right
false dichotomy. My response would have been the same as the above, but he covered it.
However, to answer your latest, I would hope that people who wish to make positive changes would realize that you cannot change the system this instant. One of the problems with modern communities is no ability to
delay gratification. Changing an entrenched paradigm overnight only comes about by it's sudden and utter collapse. Which is not an unlikely outcome, but it is also undesirable. Instead, the anarchist who actually wishes to implement his theories works to educate and remove the blinders that this paradigm has put upon them. There have been mulitple forms of governance over the ages, and many of them have done better at regulating the lower end of social interaction than our sociofascist pseudodemocracy. I would in fact argue that monarchy is a better form of governance, because with a well meaning king, people are helped, and with the usual kind, one man's reach is not so great. Republics, while giving a greater degree of power to the people at large, suffer from the same vulnerability as the block chain. The dreaded 51% attack.
But the idea has been extremely well marketed with more logical fallacies, half truths, and pure, unadulterated bullshit than any other form of government. This leads people to believe that it can't be any better than this. Especially the young who've never experienced anything else. I don't have that bias any more, unfortunately. I have watched this Republic devolve into the current nightmare in a very short period of time. The more the "tax supported" solutions are implemented, the more they are "needed". When people were self reliant AS AN AXIOM of how to live, there was far less addiction, dereliction, and poverty. By a lot. Even back 20 years ago you did not have the level of sheer stupidity that we have now in the United States. The masses have bought into the big mother fallacy to the point that they believe that a village can raise something other than a village idiot, and that parents are disposable.
Changing those attitudes took generations, and will probably take generations to repeal. When striving for a higher ideal, unless you are that village idiot, you accept that it's a lifelong work. You try to point out how things might be done better by small communities with decentralized leadership. You try to point out how the rule of law from a distant citadel is
incapable of solving the problems it creates, and you back it up with a large body of work and evidence in the often vain hope that people will listen. Then, if you're lucky, after a decade or so, thinking people start to listen, learn, and spread the word. But the resistance to change, even when the current paradigm is a betrayal of humanity, is immense and ongoing.
For the immediate, you try to reduce your exposure and try to teach those you know how to be self reliant and well educated on what is going on. Also, if you are an anarchist, you teach people how to legally exploit the system while not being dependent on it, as the seeds of the system's destruction are the very things you complain of.
