Freedomain Radio

The header for this forum talks about free-market anarchism "solving the world's problems"

Why does anyone want to "solve the world's problems" ?

Why is it their concern?

Why do they want to be considered part of "the world" ?

Why do they want to remain in close enough proximity that they are mistaken for being part of "the world" ?

Any feedback welcome.

How does one achieve being not part of the world?

Find/found another.

The one-worlders have done well indeed in persuading everyone there is only one world. But there are others, and many possibilities for fresh starts.

By world I don't mean "planet".

So my questions stand.

You're being too vague for me to answer your question directly...

Indirectly, I am able to relate what I see:

I was born with the potential/birthright/nature to be a fully sentient being aware of myself and my world (IE the alleged 'outside' world) as connected to and interdependent with each other. I grew up in a society of semi-sentience where our awareness of ourselves and of our world is separate from the other (IE I am being myself over here, and everything that happens to me is out there).

The world does not 'happen' to me; though the choices and creations of others have been direct or indirect catalysts in my own life (Keyword: catalyst). Nor can I impose my own will upon the world (and likewise all its inhabitants); though my actions, behavior, and habits do act as a catalyst for 'the world' and others in their own lives.

Why does anyone want to "save the world's problems"?
Somewhere, they must believe that they are connected to and somehow responsible - even if in a small way - for the happenings and going ons in the world they percieve around them.

Why do they want to be considered part of the world?
While I can come from many different psychological standpoints (many that potentially or strongly agree with you), I would like to point out that this statement is... well, it's a Self-Detonating Statement! How can you effectively communicate to others in this world unless you are a part of it? IF you are not part of this world - simply put, you are not here... but here you are!

...However, I recognize I might be misunderstanding what you're truly getting at. If you would be so kind as to explain yourself or this concept in more than a single sentence it would be appreciated by more than just myself. ;-)

Sorry if I came across as vague. Put simply, if I replace "world" with "civilisation", it may help you to see what I mean. Basically, I feel completely speciated from the vast majority of beings in this "civilisation", of which I am still a part, but do not wish to be. Stef and many others have good ideas but are attempting to work WITHIN this "civilisation" to proselytise and spread their message. I am almost certain such attempts are doomed to fail, for numerous reasons. I am writing a treatise on this very subject at present; actually it is the central theory. Instead, myself and a growing number of others are making plans to leave this civilisation and found a new one. A challenge, but far better than to stick around "here" and get drafted into, or slaughtered by, a fascist army sometime in the next decade and a half.

Not trying to sound pessimistic, but isn't building a new civilization even more doomed to fail than anything else...?

There is no part in this world that is completely seperate from the rest. If your new-founded civilization turns out to be successful, it will naturally grow. I think it is very likely that once it becomes noticed on the worldmap, so to speak, the other countries will perceive it as a threat and ultimately destroy it.

Let me make this analogy: say you're going to a regular public school and you decide to found a group of "elites" - people who are bright, positive, productive, peaceful, happy, etc.

How would the rest of the school - mostly consisting of closed-minded, aggressive, thoughtless, immature kids - react to it?

It would create a standard for them to compare to, a standard that they would perceive as much higher than they could possibly achieve. Their envy would force them to try and destroy it.

How would you avoid something like this from happening for a new civilization?

Philosopher Jagger:

There is no part in this world that is completely seperate from the rest. If your new-founded civilization turns out to be successful, it will naturally grow

Both these assumptions are incorrect. There are many places where separation is assured, and growth can, and will, be limited.

How would you avoid something like this from happening for a new civilization?

While I can't guarantee the longevity of my project in the face of filth like NATO/UN, I'd rather try, and potentially enjoy 5/10/20 years of TRUE FREEDOM an be recaptured/killed, than stick around and end up on the set of Satantango but for real

Not only would growth have to be very limited (which I think would be a serious challenge to ensure), but the whereabouts of that civilization should also not be publicly known.

You're faced with the choice of either basically living in a primitive but happy society or a developed and happy society that faces the constant threat of being wiped out by some state.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all, but personally I prefer to live in a developed but flawed society and try to improve it for the following generations. Or to put it this way: I think that my drive to propagate my genes is stronger than my drive for personal freedom, haha.

Philosopher Jagger:

Not only would growth have to be very limited (which I think would be a serious challenge to ensure), but the whereabouts of that civilization should also not be publicly known.

You're faced with the choice of either basically living in a primitive but happy society or a developed and happy society that faces the constant threat of being wiped out by some state.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all, but personally I prefer to live in a developed but flawed society and try to improve it for the following generations. Or to put it this way: I think that my drive to propagate my genes is stronger than my drive for personal freedom, haha.

Primitivity/development has nothing to do with concealed whereabouts. Yes, there will not be power stations, but really, if one is going to take the presence or not of such things as one's gauge then one might as well not even consider the idea at all. Just wait for the Supergrid to be rolled out in a few year's time. I admire your prescient and heartfelt commitment to the lives of your children, but I would put it to you that bringing them alongside the kind of children I have to supervise in my dayjob (the youth of the future) will be very unpleasant for them. The whereabouts of the new civilisation will OF COURSE not be publically known.

Even in a typical state, not every place is the same. Although I was unfortunate enough to be brought up in a rather unpleasant environment myself, I've seen schools and towns that are quite nice. I think it is our "duty" to allow free market competition to improve our world by preferring institutions, places and people which are pro voluntarism and anti-violence (even if there are almost always some bad state influences...).

...although the main reason why I wouldn't want to live in that new civilization is probably because there would be no internet XD

Philosopher Jagger:

Even in a typical state, not every place is the same. Although I was unfortunate enough to be brought up in a rather unpleasant environment myself, I've seen schools and towns that are quite nice. I think it is our "duty" to allow free market competition to improve our world by preferring institutions, places and people which are pro voluntarism and anti-violence (even if there are almost always some bad state influences...).

...although the main reason why I wouldn't want to live in that new civilization is probably because there would be no internet XD

Duty is one of those words that was made up to justify force. There are no duties

That's why I put it inside of quotation marks...

consentient:

SStef and many others have good ideas but are attempting to work WITHIN this "civilisation" to proselytise and spread their message. I am almost certain such attempts are doomed to fail, for numerous reasons. I am writing a treatise on this very subject at present; actually it is the central theory. Instead, myself and a growing number of others are making plans to leave this civilisation and found a new one. A challenge, but far better than to stick around "here" and get drafted into, or slaughtered by, a fascist army sometime in the next decade and a half.

I'm curious why you think that it is impossible to change the course of a civilization by changing the ideas of its members (or perhaps you intend to mean that it is impossible even to change the ideas of other people to a significant degree?  Or are you implying that it's simply too late to save this civilization?).  Could you post a synopsis of your reasoning?  Perhaps we can explore certain aspects of your findings in more depth to better understand what it is you're trying to explain.

todofixthis:

Or are you implying that it's simply too late to save this civilization?

Exactly that.

Could you post a synopsis of your reasoning?

Anarchism is a philosophy which attempts to find a way for people who disagree to live with one another. One of my central questions is: why?

I can tell you my concern:

There is a need for protection!

Protection and security is not only for the once that are able to pay for it.

History has proven that most citizen go through good and bad times. Some uninsured, home under water, unemployed, robbed or cheated.

Good example for the source of Social Anarchism was the latest housing bubble created during the Rep. Administration (unregulated markets manipulated money supply and criminal motivated speculations). 

Without proper regulations people will take advantage. I don’t have to go further in to that. We know that this where scams with or without criminal attention.

The price for social anarchism will always be paid jointly. Who did not lose equity on their home(s)? Not to mention healthcare (should be public - if not it smells like favors to insurance lobbyists), Police, Fireman, Infrastructure, Educators, Social workers…

Without these services there is no growth. Europeans learned that over a longer period of political history. There are less people in jails or homeless; -- on the other hand they have more middleclass wealth. Everyone that receives social security will consume and you can calculate cost for humanity. People in need are not dependent on single and temporary picked alms.

Of course there is less space for power corporations and profit margins of CEO’S are lower.
Greedy people usually end up with cancer anyway. Be real.