Is modern life possible without the specialists, bureaucrats, the state, etc?

Question

edited to tag

Comments

please tag this question.

---

What are the defining characteristics of "modern life" to you?

Answer 1

I also am curious as to your idea of modern life. I feel that this is the question that all anarchist have to face when they talk to libertarians, democrats, republicans... well basically everyone, even some that claim to be anarchists. Not to get off topic but has anyone heard about minarchism? Wiki that shit.
 When ever approached by this question the predominant contention is something along the lines of "who will take care of the roads without a system collecting taxes?" or "How will we get to work without proper road construction." Why is that those are the first concerns voiced. Not the the biggest, just the first. I feel that the system slows things down and invariable muddles up the works. As an example I will bring up a tiny trial of traffic regulation in parts of england. There was a traffic problem in this one town of portishead. (no not the band) They decided they would remove all trafic lights in this town for 9 months, that quickly turned into 18 months after a few weeks of success. They then began using this system in other cities around england with the same results. They found when they let drivers become personal with each other they started to express empathy. When the impersonal experience of driving in traffic become like walking in the park people began to treat others with respect. There wasn't a single accident except a fender bump (no injuries) while the driver was distracted by the bbc, They gave the decisions bake to the people, empowering them to do the right thing. I do agree with andrew jackson jihad in that "people are the greatest thing to happen." But what the system does is silence their voice and oppress their connectivity. "I have faith in my fellow person I only hope that they have faith in me." I know that this is just a snippet of your question. I did my best to address a minor concern. I don't think anyone knows what the world will look like when people are free from oppression. and sometimes i kind of agree with the nihilists. They feel that we are so corrupted by a system of destruction, that anything we attempt to create without completely deconstructing the present system will eventually come to mirror this one. I cant comment much on what will be right with the new world but I can scream about what is wrong with this system.

Comments

I only say wiki that shit cuz damn that shits ridiculous. dont you love the articulation.

Answer 2

ditto the requests for clarity on how "modern life" is defined. to me, modern life is a mistake to be learned from. not a definition, for sure, just a thought.

i think mcsquared raises a good point regarding many people's (at least perceived) priorities around modern life - roads, sanitation, electricity, etc. i think those priorities, and the questions they invoke (who will maintain the roads?), are not very deep or critical thinking; they do nothing to actually question modern life and its impact. some more interesting and relevant questions might be along the lines of:  why do i need to travel so often and so far that i need so many roads built and maintained? why do i need so much electricity? why is so much water wasted moving human waste around? etc...

to actually answer the question, i would say NO. modern life includes - maybe even depends on - a level of population and (at some level) diversity that seem to require the authoritarian institutions that have grown along with it for support and control. i see modern life and the institutions that dominate so much of it as completely co-dependent.

specialists, i see differently, depending on how the term is being used. some individuals have more interest and/or aptitude in particular areas of life (constructing dwellings, making music, helping others resolve conflicts, whatever) than others. i welcome that in any free world i inhabit. problems arise when the specialist is imbued (by themselves and/or others) with some authority that extends beyond their expertise/experience in any given situation. and that seems far too prevalent in modern life. i think dot used the term reification (of authority?) for what i am referring to.

[i really dislike using the word "authority" to refer to an individual with a particular set of expertise/experience in a given area of life. it find that it seriously muddies the term, especially in the context of anarchist discourse.  but i digress...]