tized and he is told to kill someone, who’s fault would that be? If a true rational anarchism were to look at a scenario like this, I think they would be puzzled at the problem that this creates. It could not be the man’s fault, for he was hypnotized but he still did the action of killing. But the man who hypnotized him is partly to blame, because he hypnotized the man and commanded him to murder someone. Since the true rational anarchist says that you can’t share or split blame, whose fault would it be and why? That is what puzzles me and leaves me partly in favor of this notion and partly against it. I guess that all people are responsible for their actions but sometime those actions can be influenced by other factors, like friends, family and bosses. This would be just like peer pressure: you don’t want to but you are in a way forced to even if you don’t relize it. If a boss asks you to work on the weekend, you may not want to but you know you will make a bad impression if you don’t. this will very from friend to family but there will be some for of peer pressure to make you do something you didn’t want to do.I do, on the other, hand believe in some parts of Rational anarchism. People are responsible for what they do. If I hit my brother, I would be responsible for what I did. I think there is another part of rational anarchism: for every action you carry out there will be a consequence. Using the example above, if I hit my brother, he will either hit me back or tell my mom and either way, I will be hurt or get in trouble. I think no matter what has been done, there will be consequences, no matter if the action is good or bad. If you do something good you will probably get something good, or something good will happen to you and just the opposite if you do something bad. This isn’t true in all cases because as my parents have told me many times, “life isn’t fai...
