Alt Text
Show parent replies
Doing some basic intro anarchist understanding and I am really enjoying it. I don't agree so far with what I've read but its very compelling to read about criticisms of the state itself. It's inspired me to think about the base of my political philosophy, and I'll write it below
If the state should exist, I goal should be to produce the greatest outcome for the greatest number. I have recently been questioning my utilitarianism, but I think it may be possible so far to proceed with a loose rule utilitarianist framework.
Ideally, the state would collect all recourses produced and distribute them among the people of the world equitably, as a benevolent monopolist distributor following the principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
However, there are a number of economic truths that seem to rule out that model of organization. So the state's (most likely multiple states of multiple nations) goal should be to create a sort of game system that most effectively balances output and equality.
Discovering that method should be our continual goal, and ideally we would not be bogged down in notions of property rights or nation distinctions and would recognize them exclusively as a means to an end. For instance, it should not be apriori assumed that each nation has a
"right" to borders, but instead it must justify how a system with borders would increase universal wellbeing in order to achieve maximum freedom and equality. This is a tall order, and must be accompanied by a large amount of empirical evidence.
We must continually question our systems of organization and previous traditional arrangements. Maybe borders to some extent are justified for some period of time, but the moment they are not we must push for their abolition.
I have a lot of thinking to do, but this is broadly where I sit right now. I'm sure this will shift over time, and I look forward to challenging my perspective.