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.
The democratic state is beholden entirely to its members. You’re asking if I want to be held accountable by myself and others, the answer is yes and I want the same for everyone.
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.