Ask an Anarchist

One of the advantages of insomnia is that it gives one the opportunity to make productive use of more time than usual. So, with the sunlight just beginning to penetrate the heavy morning mist here, I'll respond very briefly to the AAA question on child-rearing, and share other thoughts as may want to tumble out of my head.

Laura asked "what are some of the primary things that you conspirators do as parents that you see as starkly contrasting (and therefore a very good thing) with the mainstream?"

This is a more complicated question than it seems, especially since the "things" change over time. As children get older the interaction changes. I think the important thing is the underling philosophy that is used. The details grow out of the philosophy.

The basic premise was, and still is, that they are independent individuals with the same rights as we have. Note that is the same rights. Not more and not less. We respect their property and expect them to respect ours. We do not initiate force against them and expect them not to initiate it against others.

How does this translate into day-to-day interactions? Well, now that they are 10 and 13, it is pretty much like dealing with a peer. Not 100% because their depth of experience is not as great as ours, but that is the only reason. They have their areas of competence, we have ours, everyone makes a contribution to supporting the household, everyone derives benefits. I don't think that Annie and I make most of the decisions anymore, but that is unclear. Here are a few examples:
- We have several dogs and cats. The eldest informed us that it was time for their annual shots, called the vet and scheduled a time for him to come over. He came yesterday and both of the children assisted with the process. I paid him.
- We usually do food shopping together. Yesterday the youngest noticed that we were out of some things so suggested we go shopping today. We all agreed on a time, made a list together and this morning went shopping.
- A new tax package is in the final stages. All of us have been discussing what we should do if it passes. Should we sell the house and rent? Possibly leave Costa Rica? Some serious issues. Everyone has been actively involved in the discussion.
- The other day Annie and the girls watched the movie Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, which I did not see. All of them tell me it is very funny. And contains "adult" themes. It does not bother us that our children watch "adult" movies. They can handle it. If they have questions on anything they see or hear, we are there to answer them. Both Annie and I agree that the current prejudice which says that violence is fine but sex is not is simply sick. The bottom line is that if we are going to watch it, they will also, if they want. BTW we do not get Playboy or anything like that, simply because we are not interested.

This is pretty much how we interact. And how we have interacted for all of their lives. We have always involved them in decisions, even when most people would have thought them too young to understand what is going on. We have always respected their property. We have always explained why we do things, or why some things should not be done.

Of course we have our rough spots, like any family, but the underling idea is one of mutual respect among individuals. This means no coercion and no trespass. We all respect that, even during the less than optimal interactions.

Seeing other families basically our entire lives are in stark contract. I know that my daughters agree as they often give detailed commentary on the interpersonal interactions of people that they spend time with.

Seeing as we've just received an AAA question on childrearing, I'd say it's time to deliver on that promised AAA opportunity. If you need to, read or refamiliarize yourself with the guidelines by following the handy link in the right sidebar, and ask away.

My schedule is insane for the next couple of days, so please don't take a lack of snake ramblings as lack of interest. If you don't want to make a public posting of your question, you can email it to me, or peruse the "about the conspirators" section for their eddresses (where available; where not, send to me with an indicator of the conspirator you most want to answer it and I'll forward it).

Farider asks: "Do the proponents of anarchy have a clearly stated morality of behavior, an understanding of how to make a moral arguement [sic] for anarchy?"

I can't speak for all of them, of course, but I'm aware of some proponents who do. That said, your question is loaded with subjective terms, so your assessment of a specific proponent's success at meeting those criteria may differ from mine, or others' assessments.

Perhaps you'd like to refine your question, or hear from others before doing so ...

sh(A)ne asks of me:

I'm curious: What is it that you see as negative about "persuasion"? I've always thought of it as no different than "education", though the latter connotes an absence of bias, which I think is kind-of unrealistic. I'm often engaged in what I’d call "persuasion", though I'm always simultaneously open to being persuaded myself. I sometimes think I'd rather be proven wrong, because that means I will have learned something new.

An excellent first volley, sh(A)ne; thank you! I'll do my best to tease apart the important threads I see running through your comments.

It has come to my attention that our coily little corner of the web gets regular visitors who are not fully anti-state. Having heard from a number of these individuals over the past week, those who've de-lurked to me are highly skeptical of much of the state's functions and stated purposes, but are also skeptical of anarchy as a viable solution. Which is fair enough, for a variety of reasons. (Hell, reading some of the anarchist-oriented stuff I have leads me to be skeptical at times too.)

These individuals, to a one, report feeling a bit intimidated about asking questions of us conspirators. The majority sentiment expressed was one of not being an insider or regular. I thought I'd been clear about this, but it appears not, so I'm willing to make it a bit more visible.

A big part of why I started blogging is to explore ideas. That's also why I wanted it to be a group venture from the very first. I find that I learn best, including about myself, when someone asks me a question I'd not thought to examine. A respectful exchange between individuals who aren't devoted to trying to persuade the other, or to proving "I'm right and you're wrong", is hard to beat. I think I can speak for all the conspirators when I say that none of us is primarily interested in Making Conversions to the Great and Glorious Cause. We do want to maximize our freedom, though; and part of that involves sharing ideas with those who are interested.

With that as context, I'd like to try an experiment -- "Ask an Anarchist". If you're genuinely interested in the ideas explored here, and have questions, please ask them. If you have a broad question or two, put them in a comment on this entry. Or, if a post stirs up a question, comment there. Indicate on other posts, please, that you'd like the question to be considered as part of this experiment, say, by prefacing your comment with "AAA". That flag will alert all conspirators that you're requesting consideration from us. Conspirators, you're welcome to answer any and all questions you wish to; and I encourage you to include either in the subject or first paragraph that your entry is part of the Ask an Anarchist experiment. Non-conspirators are welcome to chime in in the comments too, of course, keeping in the spirit of respectful exploration of the freedom philosophy.

I don't want to place constraints on the scope of questions, but will say that those that appear to be designed to foster argument rather than understanding probably won't be well-received. For example, asking about how a country might transition from public property (roads are a well-worn subject) to fully private property is so broad and unanswerable, in part because there are too many possible scenarios to consider them all, as to be a fairly worthless question in my opinion. But another conspirator might think differently.

Commenters can [no longer] be anonymous; but you can email questions to me and request anonymity when I post the item.

Make sense? If the experiment proves popular, we can put up "open question" posts like this one from time to time.