A reason I'm not a hugely political activist is that I feel quite conflicted about the fundamental political principles of both today's Left and Right.
Like, I feel I deeply get Marx and Piketty's critique of capital, that it accumulates and disempowers all but a few. I've seen that happen before my eyes over the life of the Internet.
But also I get the capitalist's desire for personal freedom, to have something YOU own and can make better.
What I don't agree with is owning people's labour.
@mala I haven't read Carson specifically, but glancing at his Wikipedia I think he represents a problem I see in many anarchist writers: a focus on 'the state' as the cause of human oppression.
I think 'the state' doesn't exist as a separate category - instead we just have a web of power relations. If I have a gun and a piece of land (force and property), or the equivalents (a deniable needed resource), I *am* a tiny state. From there it's just size; I can bootstrap to kingdoms, empires, etc.
@mala And in fact for much of human history, there didn't exist formal 'states' in the modern nation-state sense. Instead there was this vast web of tribes, chiefs, local kings, 'kings of kings', eg emperors, interwoven with religious and trade powers... so it was quite distributed in a sense. But slavery and other forms of oppression still existed.
I think generally big disparities of power run against human kindness and should be moderated, in whatever institution that power is seated.
Nate Cull (.social)
Danny O'B