>>2449>But can't you only "do whatever you want" within the boundries of not taking anyone's freedom?what do you mean? Like, as an anarchist? As someone trying to maximize freedom? I need more context for this
But in general, i think all anarchism that is for freedom is bound to fail.
For the reasons mentioned above, where freedom becomes a way to seduce people into conformity, and also the following:
We either accept freedom as partial freedom, or freedom within limits, or we accept full freedom. Partial freedom would only mean those freedoms allotted to us, or which we are free to have - as soon as someone asks for one freedom beyond what they have, they realize they were never really free. So I can't believe in a partial freedom being any more free than the current society. We already are given the offer of partial freedom, in exchange for obedience. But what does full freedom entail? Some (like Stirner) take this to a really absurd place (rightly so) and equate freedom with lack, e.g. i can be free from my house, my posessions, etc., and i would be miserable. Or we could critique those who want to be free from death and the constraints of physics (transhu nerds). But
even if your conception of freedom is just being free from the laws of man, your very freedom is an unfreedom to those who wish to implement laws (which sounds like a very hypothetical and weird situation, which even if so it's enough counterexample, but if you look at all the social anarchists, what they want is basically a society where they make the rules democratically and through consensus (why do we need rules if everyone already agrees on them?). Even some so-called anarchists are heavily invested in creating laws to control people they deem wrong. So this is very much a real case, and they'd call you some kind of wrecker or poser anarchist if you tried to tell them that anarchy is no rules at all, because to them that means that all kinds of abusers, fascists, etc. get free reign). So even a full freedom is negated by itself at the meta level. It would only be a form of clerico-libertarianism, where the state of society is very controlled, but controlled as to maybe maximize certain freedoms. Not horrible, definitely better than now, but fundamentally not a "full" freedom.
So wtf, all we can have is partial freedoms. And basically we look back to
why we wanted freedom in the first place, and hopefully find that it's because we actually wanted to buck authorities over us and to instead rule our lives. This is empowerment, not freedom. And in general, what we need is ownership,
more, not less. So personally I think the only feasible position for anarchists is to transition our language from being centered around Freedom and bring it to Ownness, which is much more defensible and to the point. We want to be empowered. We want other to be empowered. We want no state or bullshit over us. Simple as. It doesnt need to be about freedom, which like you say, does contradict itself as a value at the point in which it doubles back on itself. Power and ownness never contradict - the more people laying claim to the thing or asserting themselves, the more ownness and power and affirmed. :-)
Anyways, this is how "personal liberty" and "freedom" isnt really worth asking about
BTW i recommend you read pdf attached. It's a short short intro to Dora. She's not perfect at all, but she's good at understanding what people really mean when they talk about anarchist stuff, I think. Though other have retorted against her that their anarchist is simply the desire to see more people freed from their yolk. So, take each and think about them for yourself. Personally I do think that the pure archism-for-myself is super boring and not what i want, or a viable way to get anarchy for myself. Everyone needs to be empowered for states to stop being a problem. So, pan-archism for me ;-)