|
| |
|
|  travistarrant | Jan 11, 8:42pm | | If we were to become an anarchist society, how would social programs such as social security and food stamps still exist? I ask this because due to medical reasons, I am not able to work yet and I am living on food stamps and looking to receive medicaid . |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Yoza | Jan 11, 9:52pm | There is no one answer to what form an anarchist society would take, although one of the points regularly made by Noam Chomsky is that people should take notice of one of the central tenets of the medical profession- Pimum non nocere (First, do no harm).
Because anarchism is primarily a critique of the legitimacy of authourity it cannot be co-opted by any particular group as a doctrinal system, rather it seeks to undermine the abuse of authourity to the point where any form of authourity which is not of a direct benefit to those subject to that authourity ceases to exist.
I am unfamiliar with the food-stamp system and the welfare/benefit system in the U.S. so some of what I say is based mainly on assumptions and experience with the welfare system in New Zealand (I am assuming you are from the U.S.)
The social security systems in western countries are primarily concerned with staving off civil unrest, the elites and their functionaries can point to the social security programs as a way of deflecting criticism of an unjust hierarchy, and to a certain extent they are justified as those programs provide a lifeline to the most vulnerable groups in society. What is wrong about the social security systems of any country is the level of official scrutiny and humiliation the potential recipients of any benefit are subjected to, there is the constant implicit message that you should be grateful for the level of officiousness you are subject to.
For anyone who considers themselves to be an anarchist the thought of people being subjected to such a level of scrutiny as a result of conditions beyond their control (illness, injury, old age) is unacceptable. Any social system founded on anarchist principles would not meet the criteria of being anarchist if those most vulnerable groups were humiliated to such an extent. As anarchism is a vehicle of emancipation for the disenfranchised majority it would be essential that those groups, which are at the sharp end of the contemporary economic paradigm, would ultimately be educated and provided for by their immediate/regional social environment.
I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for travistarrant as you could probably ask as many anarchists the same question and recieve as many different answers. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | ntltrmllgnc | Jan 12, 8:28am | | we have rights (which are forms of authority which is a type of documentation) because we have creative, productive, and moral potential which cannot be measured a priori. Add a pinch of innocent until proven guilty and voila we have sentient rights. |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Left Liberals → Discussion