Anarchists, I have a question for you.
Who is going to "enforce" anarchy?
People always revert to tribes of one sort or another in the absence of authority, to their mutual benefit at the expense of others. Heck, they're doing this now in the US, even in the presence of "authority". Have been for years.
So who enforces anarchy when the Warlords start to gather their clans?
I'll just shut up and listen on this one...
Heheheh... Wondered that myself...
ReplyDeleteAP,
ReplyDeleteWarlords like the ones in Washington DC? Like the ones down at the State Capitol? Like the ones at City Hall?
I dunno. What do you suggest we do about those damn warlords? Resisting doesn't seem to work. They just kick you harder and scream, "Stop resisting!"
Dave
Are we talking stateless sociaty or just lack of rules do what ever you want chaos? New or old definition? Anarchy has a deferent connotation to diferent people and groups.
ReplyDeleteJust playing devil's advocat, here: but probably the same folks who were supposed to enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
ReplyDelete- Cato, the American
a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
ReplyDelete2
a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder
No one if you use the Merriam-Webster.
In practical matters, anarchy will exist in moments and isolated patches, but, and it's a big but, people will establish their own brand of government, even if it's only to listen and follow the loudest and most audacious person around. They will then, naturally, fall into groups, with attending rules and hierarchy, to fulfil an ever present desire to be part of "the group". What follows will be either good or bad, depending, I suppose, on your definition of good or bad.
It would be better to start making those connections now, with family, friends, church, neighbors, those of like mind, hopefully to be a force of good, which at it's core is what a "government" is supposed to be. Even better would be to already have been working on a network to hopefully enable you to survive the evil forces that will surely follow as vultures to carrion.
It's a trap!
ReplyDeleteI do not support the anarchy argument either, however I sort of understand what they're going for. I think "they" have a utopian ideal that, especially now with the Internet, will emerge in the form of self organizing systems for social enforcement will grow organically without a government per se. Just as geese and flocks of sparrows can do amazing aerobatics as a group with no form of central control, so they think can emerge from human interaction. It already does in the case of the price system of products (read the i-pencil essay). I personally think that you need some form of government to prevent the tyrants from taking advantage and gaining control. The US constitution was/is not perfect, but it's pretty close (exceptions being slavery, womens' rights, and imminent domain). Just as you use landscaping fabric to keep the weeds from growing up, you institute a republic form of government to prevent the tyrants from gaining foothold. Even though, over time, they tend to find a way anyway.
ReplyDeleteWell, that all depends on what sort of anarchism you're talking about. There are as many types of anarchism as there are Christian sects, it seems at times. So many types, in fact, that I once wrote an article titled, "Your Anarchism is not My Anarchism."
ReplyDeleteThe question of "What would an anarchist society look like?" has been pondered, debated and beaten into the ground for several centuries now. All of your objections have likely been dissected twenty ways to Tuesday and you could find the answers to this question easily if you cared to look.
If you start with a narrow caricature of the idea you oppose, it's easy to beat up on the straw man. It's one reason why I rarely describe my beliefs as "anarchism." Too hard to get past the prejudices people have toward that word. Instead, I talk about liberty and freedom and people nod their heads and never know how much of their thought fits comfortably into an anarchist worldview (at least my version of anarchism, that is!) They just don't call it that.
Me? I'm a Christian anarchist, theologically in the Reformed tradition. Many Christian anarchists embrace pacifism, but I separate at that point, as the Scriptural arguments for pacifism are weak. I have considered myself an Anarchist for over twenty years now.
To answer your question, as I see it, there will be no such thing as an anarchist utopia, ever. Human beings are still human beings, after all. But (again, as I see it) anarchism does not presume to be a "structure" for society. It exists in individual hearts and minds and exerts itself in the interactions we have with others. Anarchism (as I see it) has far more to do with the Golden Rule and respect for God's creation and God himself than it does with "Do what thou will and screw everybody else."
Also, keep in mind that a society or tribe can be anarchistic in their philosophy and still have leaders. They can also have authority. They can also have rules, guidelines and laws. Those things are not exclusive of anarchism - however, the mechanism by which these things function is different in an anarchist context.
And if you think that there is some sort of contradiction in the things that I've just set out, well, perhaps your understanding of what anarchism can be needs to be expanded.
If the recent university study that shows that humans naturally cooperate (google this - there are several studies and a book or two on Amazon) is factual then we can perhaps assume that the notion that the warlord mentality will be somewhat of an outlier. Additionally if private property is the norm with out government owned property, then a small polity of individual land owners can control their geographical holdings and not let outsiders in without permission. It may be that we are fed a constant stream of fear in relation to the absence of state sponsored coercion to keep the norm in place, when in actuality we see the same warlord sociopathic personality types gaining control of various government functions.
ReplyDeleteReading through Selco SHTF School it becomes apparent that you do not want to begin an experiment in freedom after the complete collapse of a given social order or without the widespread ownership of small arms(perhaps) + cooperative communities. Also if the population relies heavily on the distribution of resources through highly centralized mechanisms (electrity and food + government coercion) this type of transition would again be challenging.
With regard to protection Hans Hoppe has written extensively on the theme that all security production can be purchased. There is a chapter on nuclear war and game theory in this free book http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf. The book itself may answer some of your questions. It was a game changer for me. The folks at www.freedomainradio.com have done a lot of thinking in this regard and they posit a notion of security companies used as protection vehicles of persons and property. The free rider problem is also covered extensively. The central theme is competition produces efficiencies.
For a US citizen you might ask what would private arms production look like without the 1934 and 68 gun control acts?
I like to think of the Ebay model and it's self enforcing method of honesty and risk assessment with regard to transactions. Could that type of model be extrapolated to a larger extent? How about ratings agencies for restaurants and hotels? What about the use of mediation services in many business transactions?
There is a lot of ground to cover here. The above is a 30,000 foot level over view at best.
If people are left to their own devices they will figure out ways to transact and mitigate risk. The whys and hows of trying to figure out details of how the market will solve all of these things is near impossible as it would be akin to predicting that cell phone usage would be widespread from the viewpoint of 50 years ago.
If technology has allowed for massive decentralization and specialization in the private sector why are governments spending their time increasing centralization? You already know that answer.
They are important considerations and interesting to explore to say the least.
If anarchy is enforced by anyone other than each individual then it is not anarchy. Even then you are not enforcing anarchy; you are defending your rights and property. Each person is responsible for enforcing his own interests. Even now- despite what cops, puppeticians, and bureaucrats might claim.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean that a person can't hire someone to protect his interests, of course. But in that case no one is ruling anyone. A person is hired for a job. If he then starts trying to rule his employer he gets fired. If he starts attacking or stealing "as part of his job", his employer is also held accountable. If he refuses to step down he will get removed. And probably the previous employer wouldn't even have to hire help to do it. No one would want a dangerous lunatic like that running around violating his contracts and trying to rule. Getting him to go straight, or eliminating him if he continues to violate people, would be in everyone's self interest.
Being tribal is natural, but that has nothing to do with anarchy or the lack thereof. And authority has nothing to do with ruling other people. True authority leads; false authority (the kind most common now) shoves you from behind. It is the lack of leaders today, and the proliferation of the shovers, which is the problem.
The Somalis, before the States of the world started trying to force a State onto them, were very tribal- and it worked very well (even though I think some of the rules of their society were disgusting). But it was never anarchy. Now they have chaos because their traditional tribal societies have been disrupted, and bad guys- the warlords- got a taste of governing and keep trying to come out on top. Yes, the Warlords are a result of trying to make a Somali State.
To be continued...
Anarchy isn't something; it is an absense of something. It is the absense of anyone trying to impose arbitrary rules upon others- rules which violate self-ownership and property rights- under the illusion of legitimacy, at the point of a gun, often backed up by some myth that they have some right to do this. Anarchy doesn't mean there won't still be bad guys out there. Nothing eliminates them (especially not States). It just means those bad guys can't pretend to be anything other than bad guys. It means they can't gravitate toward "legitimized" positions of power where their evil can be safely aimed at everyone else under the guise of "the common good" or "for their own good". Pulling that rug of legitimacy out from under them would go a long ways toward ensuring liberty. A lot farther than any State or constitution has ever gone.
ReplyDeleteAnd you can still have a "constitution" that helps you visualize this and stay on course. If you need it.
But, back to your question about what happens when the Warlords start to gather their clans. You pretend this is different than the situation we are in now, but it isn't. The Warlords' clans are just not genetically linked; they are political. Their clan is their faction: Republicans, Democrats, cops, etc. They protect their own at the expense of everyone else. They even kill members of other clans, although they try to hide it somewhat. Not only that, but the worst of the clans work together against you and me more than they fight among themselves. We are more their enemy than the other Warlords' clans could ever be, since we are the ones who threaten their legitimacy- and that's the one thing they can't survive without.
In a free society ("anarchy") anyone who acted like these current Warlords could be defended against the first time they attacked anyone, and every time after that. They wouldn't last long. And, as long as no one was stupid enough to agree to a constitution that legitimized these thugs they could never claim they had a divine (or democratic) right to rule.
A few (scattered) thoughts and observations...
ReplyDeleteI definately agree with your comment on Somalia, Kent.
JR- I poked my head into Christian Anarchism for a while, but the only experience in that world I have is from the pacifist (or, more extreme, non-resistant) POV. I don't oppose anarchism; I don't quite understand it enough to take a concrete stance on eway or the other on it, you might say.
I'll admit that my understanding and definition of "anarchy" is a bit fuzzy, if I have a definition and understanding at all.
I do know that it is not accurate to say that anarchy=chaos, just as it is not accurate to say that state=order.
As Underground Carpenter and Kent have pointed out, we already are under "Warlord" rule. This occurs regardless, whether it is street gangs, local militias, or your local state-sponsored terrorist chapter. I agree with this wholly.
I guess following this train of thought out isn't something I've devoted a lot of time to, and it isn't something that (IMO) gets a fair shake, especially out in the Constitutionalist world. This is one reason for this forum posed as a question.
Often I see a false choice set up, where on one hand we are given the "choice" of a state, and on the other, pure chaos, such as the heavily steered and state-influenced Somalian example. I don't like that much. It's sort of like using our economy today to demonstrate the "evils" of a "free market".
Yes, I am able to search the internet and steer a Google as well as the next fellow, but there are some of you I really wanted to hear from on this. After I get some personal input, maybe I'll jump into impoersonal articles and data.
I like to develop a few hypotheses on a given subject, to give my googling and noodling some direction. Some specific points to confirm/deny, you might say.
I'll put these things in the pressure cooker and see what comes out.
I apologize if my post's question comes across as an attack on a straw man. It is not, rather, it is more of a repetition of one of the more commonly held points of view on the subject.
I wanted to give folks a forum to address it, as well as learn a bit on the subject myself. It seems like a big mistake might be seeing "anarchy" as a thing, rather than the absence of a thing.
Next I imagine will come the other POV, which I welcome as educational as well...
AP
AP I'm reposting in case the first submission was lost as I don't see it here:
ReplyDeleteIf the recent university study that shows that humans naturally cooperate (google this - there are several studies and a book or two on Amazon) is factual then we can perhaps assume that the notion that the warlord mentality will be somewhat of an outlier. Additionally if private property is the norm with out government owned property, then a small polity of individual land owners can control their geographical holdings and not let outsiders in without permission. It may be that we are fed a constant stream of fear in relation to the absence of state sponsored coercion to keep the norm in place, when in actuality we see the same warlord sociopathic personality types gaining control of various government functions.
Reading through Selco SHTF School it becomes apparent that you do not want to begin an experiment in freedom after the complete collapse of a given social order or without the widespread ownership of small arms(perhaps) + cooperative communities. Also if the population relies heavily on the distribution of resources through highly centralized mechanisms (electrity and food + government coercion) this type of transition would again be challenging.
With regard to protection Hans Hoppe has written extensively on the theme that all security production can be purchased. There is a chapter on nuclear war and game theory in this free book http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf. The book itself may answer some of your questions. It was a game changer for me. The folks at www.freedomainradio.com have done a lot of thinking in this regard and they posit a notion of security companies used as protection vehicles of persons and property. The free rider problem is also covered extensively. The central theme is competition produces efficiencies.
For a US citizen you might ask what would private arms production look like without the 1934 and 68 gun control acts?
I like to think of the Ebay model and it's self enforcing method of honesty and risk assessment with regard to transactions. Could that type of model be extrapolated to a larger extent? How about ratings agencies for restaurants and hotels? What about the use of mediation services in many business transactions?
There is a lot of ground to cover here. The above is a 30,000 foot level over view at best.
If people are left to their own devices they will figure out ways to transact and mitigate risk. The whys and hows of trying to figure out details of how the market will solve all of these things is near impossible as it would be akin to predicting that cell phone usage would be widespread from the viewpoint of 50 years ago.
If technology has allowed for massive decentralization and specialization in the private sector why are governments spending their time increasing centralization? You already know that answer.
They are important considerations and interesting to explore to say the least.
Anarchy ends when the biggest ego has eliminated all of its competition.
ReplyDeleteNow you have a government.
"Anarchy" as a term isn't very useful and invites straw-man arguments, conditions in Somalia being the most abused in this way.
ReplyDelete"Voluntarism" should supplant the term. As the most fantastically ass-kicking predators on the planet, there are a limited number of ways we can deal with each other. Primarily, we can a) interact through force or threat of force, or b) interact through voluntary association.
Government is force, pure and simple, always applied unjustly in some measure. You can call the reduction of government "anarchy" if you like, and fret over all sorts of horrible potential outcomes. (No rational person would argue that the sudden collapse of government wouldn't involve at least some of these.)
You can also call for, work toward and demand the gradual abandonment of government, replacing it with a society based on voluntary association, reputation, natural consequences and free exchange of ideas, goods and services.
Not coincidentally, America was the place where these ideas were once given the greatest influence and where the greatest progress and prosperity in human history has ever occurred.
"Anarchy" isn't some strange, virulent idea that leads to chaos and destruction. It is the only way that predatory species can interact that does not involve violence. This key element comes into play when people recognize that there is more to be gained from cooperation than assault and theft.
"Anarchy" was once a de facto state of affairs in America. The Old West provided innumerable examples, Hollywood nonwithstanding, of peaceful cooperation with little or no governmental involvement even within the confines of towns and cities.
Emma Goldman's definition of anarchism is the best explanation of anarchism and it is very close to contemporary libertarianism.
ReplyDeleteShe said, "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."
What do you think the weaknesses are in this definition?
@ AP
ReplyDelete“Who is going to 'enforce' anarchy?”
I define anarchy, not in the popular sense of chaos or wanton violence, but in a stricter sense, based on the root word and its prefix, as the absence of coercive authority, a condition under which the voluntary collaborative association of individuals and groups is the natural means of social organization.
To define authority, at least in my own mind, I look to the root of the word which means originator, progenitor, or creator, and which also means, in an even older sense, the quality of profound inner certainty.
Authority is the ability to exert significant influence over the actions of others, including explicit leadership, which derives from deference by others to one's character, skill, knowledge, wisdom, spirituality, or some other personal trait highly valued by his peers. In anarchy such deference is not physically coerced, but occurs voluntarily, owing to the natural acknowledgment by others of one's demonstrated superiority, innate talent, or inner certainty in a given discipline.
Anarchy does not mean utopia, Nor does it imply the absence of disputes. Humans will always be imperfect, and criminal behavior by some will always persist. But anarchy does propose a more rational and far less costly approach toward justice, through restitution and reconciliation mediated by private profit-seeking parties, as opposed to state-imposed retribution or forced “rehabilitation” at the expense of victims and tax payers.
Finally, anarchy in no way precludes the use of lethal violence, whether by the individual alone or collaboratively with other individuals, as in voluntary militias, in the defense of life, liberty, and property.
Given these terms, I am unsure how to address a question which asks how to “enforce” anarchy. For me, the crux of anarchy is not to enslave our fellows or allow them to enslave us?
My simple minded 2 bits.
Reginald Starr
Ursus Minor-
ReplyDeleteTwo issues.
Some people do not wish to be "free" of the "domination" of religion.
"an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."
From my experience, such a guarantee is impossible.
I also do not understand the portrayal of property (reward for work) as a negative. Can you elaborate?
Reginald-
"as the absence of coercive authority, a condition under which the voluntary collaborative association of individuals and groups is the natural means of social organization.
I understand this. When people in such an environment voluntarily choose to form into a Marxist (or any other) collective that eventually becomes coercive, who ends it? The coerced, who are subjugated and powerless? Other people, who are interested in "spreading" their chosen form of government (or lack thereof)?
My point is, people, being people, are always going to form collectives to benefit their interests at the expense of others. As a friend once put it, it might be pathological.
Does a world based on free will and association allow for a voluntary collective government, and at what point/with what means does said oppression end?
This is what I mean by "enforcing" anarchy.
First, anarchy simply means no ruler.
ReplyDeleteWhy do YOU need a ruler? Why must YOU have a leader, a nanny, a "big brother"? Am I one of the very few who don't need & resent being told what to do?
Who is enforcing your constitutionally guaranteed rights, right now?
"Who is going to "enforce" anarchy?"
Why, the same group enforcing the law of gravity, of course!
Which came first, individuals or government? Who needs who? Does the individual derive power from government, or the other way around?
As it is now, we are prevented from enforcing our rights.
Who enforced the rights of individuals in Rwanda or Germany or Zimbabwe?
..."Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class."...
"There appears to be a curious difficulty about exercising reflective thought upon the actual nature of an institution into which one was born and one's ancestors were born. One accepts it as one does the atmosphere; one's practical adjustments to it are made by a kind of reflex. One seldom thinks about the air until one notices some change, favourable or unfavourable, and then one's thought about it is special; one thinks about purer air, lighter air, heavier air, not about air. So it is with certain human institutions. We know that they exist, that they affect us in various ways, but we do not ask how they came to exist, or what their original intention was, or what primary function it is that they are actually fulfilling; and when they affect us so unfavourably that we rebel against them, we contemplate substituting nothing beyond some modification or variant of the same institution. "
(J. Nock)
Did God create man to be ruled by man, or to be ruled by God?
"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day."
itor
"Does a world based on free will and association allow for a voluntary collective government, and at what point/with what means does said oppression end?" - AP
ReplyDeleteWhen we learn that we first have to govern ourselves, before we can even attempt to form rules governing the interactions of a group.
With out self-discipline their can be no group discipline.
That with self-discipline group discipline becomes more of of an etiquette on how to address disputes at the idividual level first then move up to larger group autority figures as needed. A bottom up approach vs. a top down aproach to dispute resolution.
When we can govern ourselves. Then their will be no need for a state.
Vernor Vinge's short story "The Ungoverned" (which is available here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1416520724/1416520724___4.htm ) is about a de facto anarchist society and how it deals with an invasion by a neighboring state.
I have to admit I don't think it would actually be able to preserve itself in all the various situations likely to occur, but I wouldn't be opposed to being proved wrong.
The Israelites begged God for a king. His reply was, at first, "WTF?"
ReplyDeleteColonial (i.e., pre-federal) America was a practical anarchy, especially compared to now.
"Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves. Britons never ever ever will be slaves!"
The worst thing about our present condition is that, except for mom's insistence on self-respect and dad's on self-control, I might very well be one of those warlords. Think about it -- how many of us volunteered to play nice in exchange for a piece of the action?
But our partner reneged on the deal and we've been cut out of the action.
Begs the point I think: anarchy is only for when the war lord ain't you.
The individual enforces anarchy by forcibly resisting the rule of anyone else. Voluntary collective action can be used. Passive resistance can be employed. An AR-15 might come in handy.
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend reading Niall Ferguson's book "Civilization" (pretty new). He makes the point that it wasn't the governments that invented the codes and laws, which eventually became common law, these codes of conduct were developed organically beforehand, then a government came to power and said: "That's a good idea" let's make that a law and build monuments and statues. History, and ancient history especially is terribly biased towards the regimes that left the things that remain. It's hardly mentioned that trade, and individual innovation was what made it possible for a tyrant to fund such adventures. One could argue that history had a whole lot of anarchy, and it did just fine, pretty good in fact, at least until some asshole came along, and forced the populace to build tombs and monuments in his honor.
ReplyDeletePriests, Thieves, and Princes, the parasites of the world...
"The individual enforces anarchy by forcibly resisting the rule of anyone else. Voluntary collective action can be used. Passive resistance can be employed. An AR-15 might come in handy."
ReplyDeleteThis.
I like this explanation as well.
The question becomes, will folks band together for their common interests, or merely look on with disgust as they watch yet another individual be subjugated to the violence of collectives?
Quantity has a quality all its own.
AP
Every revolution with one notable exception has always ended in an oppressive government. The forces of evil will always take advantage of the chaos to take power.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 6:27
ReplyDelete"Just as you use landscaping fabric to keep the weeds from growing up, you institute a republic form of government to prevent the tyrants from gaining foothold"
Great analogy!!
The question becomes, will folks band together for their common interests, or merely look on with disgust as they watch yet another individual be subjugated to the violence of collectives?
ReplyDeleteAye, there's the rub.
People will generally act in a way that profits them. If your society has established a culture of institutional violence, corruption and kleptocracy, don't expect much help from your neighbors. It's every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.
If you live in a society that values freedom, individual accomplishment and self-worth, others are less likely to stand by idly as you're thrown into the cannibal pot knowing that they're next.
Solzhenitsyn famously said "We didn't love freedom enough" when considering that there was no resistance to Stalin's purges. The "why" of that is simple: The Russians simply had no experience with it.
That of course frames the question of where America stands, today.
Based on the comments on CA's link at WRSA, I'm guessing that this post was/is a result of my comments.
ReplyDeleteI tried to respond here, but went ahead and responded on my blog due to space restraints.
Good points made here, even by people whose views I may disagree with.
ND,
JM
MG-
ReplyDeleteThis thread was inspired by that line of comments, yours as well.
I'm still undecided.
I think, no matter what flavor the state is, when the people decide to quit struggling, it's game over.
AP
MG-
ReplyDeleteBTW, you won't see me looking for a ticket to Somalia anytime soon.
Nor Iran. Nor England.
Or any other nation.
My fight is here. I'd rather not live, or die, or fight, in any other nation.
For what it's worth.
AP
AP, Not a problem alot of the extremist don't mind coming over here to kill us.
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing up the question, AP. Lots of good comments here.
ReplyDeleteAs a practical matter, voluntary anarchy won't happen on any large scale because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't want it. It really is much easier to offload much of the mundane details of daily living to an outside authority.
The interesting thing to me is that one of the most common things you hear in the Liberty oriented community is "I just want to be left alone". Most are primarily referring to the government when they say that. But, they will still say that we need the government to deal with the criminals, idiots, poor, _____ (fill in the blank).
That's fine as long as we realize that the bottom line is that we are handing someone a gun and saying "Point this at everyone's head (including mine) and order me to obey your rules".
At that point you can have a reasonable discussion about how much government you need, what form, how much authority to give, safeguards, etc., guided by an understanding of how it really works. All the time remembering that it can be a dangerous beast that will bite you if you don't keep an eye on it.
It probably isn't even a question of good and bad, right and wrong - just a matter of dealing with things as they really are.
AP - We probably all agree with your sentiments regarding staying right here and fighting for freedom.
ReplyDeleteSeriously though - read Hoppe's book titled 'The Myth of National Defense' from the link above. It was the Red Pill for me in regard to overcoming any reasons that I thought a small government minarchist viewpoint might be worthwhile.
I'm not saying I wouldn't fight for the current Constitution and BOR but the arguments presented within that book are logically consistent.
Well put. I will stick with my previous observation that nobody who has actually been in a failed state/ anarchistic society is a fan of it.
ReplyDelete"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian, I think I could probably agree with the first part of Goldman's definition ... mostly. I think religion and government have been used to as a coercive force to stamp out the flame of freedom in the souls of many people. I also think that the economic system that America is becoming is one in which people are viewed as commodities/property to be exploited for the good of the collective. So in this sense I think libertarianism is very similar to Goldman's view of anarchism.
"Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations."
This is where I start to have a problem with anarchism as defined here. She establishes anarchism as a social order with its own rules and guarantees (a new form of rule). She also seems inconsistent in trying to maintain the freedom of the individual but only within the bounds of the tribe that comes together.
Pure anarchism is a complete absence of rulership ... it is a free for all that really resembles Nietzsche's philosophy of the strong dominating the weak because they aren't beholden to law or religion. Anarchism fails because it assumes that human beings are inherently good, decent, and moral. History disproves this in every age.
That's why I support the limited government outlined by the constitution. It established a very limited means to control human nature while still being faithful to liberty and the natural rights of man.
"Anarchism fails because it assumes that human beings are inherently good, decent, and moral. History disproves this in every age."
ReplyDeleteAnd states are ruled by human beings of a different character? Has "history" proven any state to "work?" Could nature be telling us something when we can see that all states everywhere for all of time have reverted to anarchy in the end? Perhaps that social conflict cannot be resolved (the purported goal of a state) by escalating the conflict through systemic theft and violence (i.e. the fundamental nature of all states)?
The choice is between violence (states) or trade (markets), not order and disorder.
"That's why I support the limited government outlined by the constitution. It established a very limited means to control human nature while still being faithful to liberty and the natural rights of man."
How's that working out for you? How limited did that little experiment turn out to be? How long did it take for the "wheels to come off?"
Assigned reading:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/8215print.cfm
http://patriotslament.blogspot.com/2012/02/constitution-of-no-authority.html
Voluntaryism won't work in America because humans do not yet understand what free trade means. Once that becomes truly widespread knowledge, people will put the guns down because they can be richer/wealthier/happier without them. We still believe that killing makes us richer which is a throwback to the economic model of fixed wealth. For an example, talk to ANY American about "China taking 'our' x industry" and witness how confused their understanding is.
We eventually rejected the "humor" system of medical care in favor of other things, so I am hopeful that the confused economic ideas will eventually fade away, much like flat earth beliefs, etc.
"Anarchy ends when the biggest ego has eliminated all of its competition."
ReplyDeleteFeh. The biggest ego wants to offer as much value as possible to others. A big ego isn't stupid.
I don't know who Emma Goldman is, but clearly she doesn't understand...
"Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion;"
That's crazy. As AP already noted, some people don't want that liberation. So much for that idea.
"the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property;"
That's even crazier! Who owns the body, if not the self? All the other property just follows from that---whatever the self does with that body, whatever it gains or earns. AP doesn't want to be liberated from religion; I don't want to be liberated from my pickup. So, end of that story too.
"liberation from the shackles and restraint of government."
Well, at least that's close, except that it's not quite so passive as "restraint." It's outright forceful imposition and that's all it is. A government has nothing else at its avail, even on the assumption that it started with the "consent of the governed."
IMO this is what Kent was saying when he wrote: "Anarchy isn't something; it is an absence of something."
Right. It's the absence of the only tools Govco has---guns and cages, basically. Anarchy, as the word is being used here, is the decision of willful individuals that they will interact to each other's benefit and gain whatever values they choose...WILLFULLY. This is all that Capitalism means. And with even half a wit, those willful individuals realize that everyone else is a willful individual too and so should be treated as such, and not as a slave or a cow.
The big secret is that almost everyone wants this; they just don't believe they can stand up against the ne'er-do-wells.
And what about that? Yes, what of them? Why would any group of individuals assume that they can't deal with ne'er-do-wells unless they consent to other ne'er-do-wells to control their own lives?
Kinda crazy when you look at it that way, which is the way it is.
I would say that those who advocate "limited government" are the utopian wishful thinkers. Is it fear that keeps you wanting a government to rule over and take care of your problems? Aren't those in government merely men just like you or I? When has that ever worked? So why does one think it can somehow? "If we just vote in the right guys"?
ReplyDeleteThe same folks who say "Don't tread on me", "Liberty or Death" and then advocate for something that is in direct contradiction of those things.
Show me your "smaller government" that has worked. It always end in tyranny.
So the argument is, "well, anarchy(which only means the non existence of a institutionalized theft)will just lead to (name your horrible situation"). And yet you live in that horrible situation RIGHT NOW. And advocate for it? Living in a society where there is no one forcing you to pay homage to it as the serfs you are is apparently a frightening thing. We all tell each other we can take care of ourselves, and then we turn and say we couldn't survive without someone taking care of us.
No one who has lived through ANY failed society is an advocate for it. Unless it's the USA. There are plenty of examples during the early settlement of this land where you had "colonies" that lived under no government. Anne Hutchinson's was one. They lived quite well, and the fruits of their anarchist society helped lead to the American Revolution 100 years later. Acting like those who advocate anarchy are somehow wimpy kids wishing for people to be nice is ridiculous too. I know people aren't always nice. I am not afraid of them. I am willing to try it out. Ticket to Somalia? Not quite.
No one knows exactly how it would "rub out", but I am for progressing more Liberty, and desire to push on towards a new Liberty, in the same fashion that Jefferson leaned towards.
1) Emma Goldman is the most well known American anarchist of the twentieth century, so if you don't know who she is then you haven't really studied anarchism, yet claim to know what it really is.
ReplyDelete2) Limited government is preferable to anarchy if only to allow for the protection of the weak (a fundamental principle of libertarianism)
3) Anarchists calling people who believe in limited constitutional government utopian wishful thinkers is hypocritical because neither of us are living in the systems we think are best. Therefore anarchists are utopian wishful thinkers that do not realize their utopian dream is actually a nightmare.
Look at what happened after the overthrow of Hussein in Iraq, the disbandment of the government and military. In the midst of that vacuum was anarchy & what happened? Absolute chaos, violence, theft, murder, looting, and on and on. That is what anarchy looks like ... the strong or well-armed with no moral or legal restraint prey on the weak and helpless. That is human nature in the absence of the hedges provided by religious or legal institutions. I think most anarchists don't realize that they would not survive the very system that they advocate.
Revisionist history is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteThe early settlements and colonies were not anarchist communes. They were based on a very strict order of local government.
Jefferson was not an anarchist. He was a libertarian that did not believe in the total absence of the church or state only that both should have very limited power over the lives of people.
"1) Emma Goldman is the most well known American anarchist of the twentieth century, so if you don't know who she is then you haven't really studied anarchism, yet claim to know what it really is."
ReplyDeleteDisagree.
Can someone be a Christian if he or she knows nothing Billy Graham?
Can someone be a protestant without knowing about Martin Luther?
Can someone believe in liberty without having heard of Jefferson?
AP
Ursus, I didn't say she wasn't well known; I said she didn't understand. And she doesn't. Who the hell wants to be "liberated" from their very own beliefs, let alone their property?
ReplyDeleteI'll stick with, "That's crazy," because it is.
Who owns you? What does it mean to say you're trying to be "liberated" from that? And I'm not speaking for anarchists anyway; I barely know what the word means. No governance? That's crazy too; we each govern ourselves. That's a plain fact.
As to preying on the weak and helpless being "human nature in the absence of the hedges provided by religious or legal institutions," I'm not sure for whom you're speaking, but it sure ain't me. I don't prey on others, period. Are you suggesting that I'm not human?
Though if you'd like to explain why it would be your nature to prey on the weak and helpless without those "hedges," then I for one am very interested. Forgive me, but I'm skeptical that you're really like that.
Anarchy is like a vacuum....it cannot exist for more than brief moment in time. Than something seeps in to the vacuum/anarchy and
ReplyDeletebuhbye anarchy. Even outerspace isn't a true vacuum and human society can only exist in anarchy when that society is comprised of only one individual. As soon as a second person enters the picture
anarchy is gone.
Jim - " No governance? That's crazy too; we each govern ourselves. That's a plain fact."
ReplyDeleteYou IMHO are talking about volition not governance. Most people are not self-aware enough to know why they do things and are not getting the result they expect from their actions. Most of the people I come into contact with every day base their decisions on emotions (want), not reason. Wanting something is not necessarily bad you just need to be able to use reason and forethought to determine if it will actually be good for you or not.
People have the volition to do and act independently of those around them. This doesn't mean they understant or can plan out how to get what they want. If they get what they where looking for a lot of the time it was by accident.
Governing is placing restrictions or having a plan to reach a desired result. It's the combination of forethought and volition.
That's my definition of self-governance.
Hmmm...
I think that's right, Dan. As soon as even two are present, you have them "governing" their interactions in some way.
ReplyDeleteAll that leaves is their decision to treat each other as people or cattle.
"Who the hell wants to be "liberated" from their very own beliefs, let alone their property?"
ReplyDeleteYou are misunderstanding her point. For her, society was built around the imposition of religion on how people live their lives (they weren't her beliefs they were coercive dogmas), the imposition of government to control what people can and can't do with their own lives, and the view that people are property with no self-determination (have you never worked somewhere where you do what you told and if you don't you have no value and are cut lose, or what about debt ... are you owned by your debtors?).
"I don't prey on others, period. Are you suggesting that I'm not human?"
"Though if you'd like to explain why it would be your nature to prey on the weak and helpless without those "hedges," then I for one am very interested."
Are people capable of doing good? Absolutely, but human nature has a dark side and in the absence of those hedges I mention the darker side of human nature will prey on the weak and helpless b/c people like you and me are less likely to go against our morality. If you think that everything is going to be civilized then just look to the northern regions of Mexico. That's human nature too. Anarchism can't pick and choose what types of people will be around.
Are you telling me that if you have the choice between 'scavenging' (read looting) so your family can survive or sticking to your 'good' human nature and leaving those things for the weaker and more helpless that you'll choose the latter?
Human beings have both the capacity for good and evil within them. To quote from a favorite TV series where a daughter asks her father whether the man he was talking to is a good or bad man. Her father said, 'baby there's no such thing.' There was only one perfect man and none of us are him. I guess I'm just not afraid to admit it.
Are you serious? I guess criminals and gangs will disappear during anarchy and we will all sing kumbaya and everyone will live in peace and harmony b/c apparently my reading of history is wrong, and all the examples of Nietzschean strong men dominating the weak were just aberrations and the exception to the rule. Thanks for setting me straight. Now pardon me while I get busy rewriting the history books.
"I guess criminals and gangs will disappear during anarchy and we will all sing kumbaya..."
ReplyDeleteI don't guess that; I think there are some rotten SOBs out there. Why, do they disappear when governments are instituted?
No, in fact they multiply like locusts. Besides the obvious fact that the worst among us will try to get on the butt end of the collectivized guns, there's also the issue that such a philosophy spreads throughout the society, with all the usual rationalizations about how "good" it all is---higher values, public good, helping others and all the assorted claptrap that comes with it.
Don't rewrite the history books; just take a glance. Was it rapists and murderers that killed hundreds of millions last century, or was it various States? Are thieves controlling our every move of every waking day, or is Govco? Is it some lone thug that's stopping you and me from trading values, or is it an endless legion of regulators?
Is it really an issue whether you'll steal my food in order to survive? Is that what this is about, or is that just a strawman? Are we to live on the level of scavengers or vultures, or are we to live as humans?
The point isn't that there are thugs out there. The question is whether we want to institutionalize thuggery because of that. Apparently you think we should, but you haven't offered much of an argument for it.
And BTW, dogmas don't coerce, even as some people who accept dogmas, do.
As usual, Josh, I've no idea what you're trying to say. If you're just saying that people are less than purely rational, then I agree. But I haven't a clue why that translates into "by accident."
ReplyDeletePeople give thought and then decide. I'd think that's sort of obvious, for ALL functional humans. If that's not "self-governance," then I don't know what is, without regard to how sensibly they do it.
Are you seriously asserting that some people self-govern and others don't? Except for severe illness or being in chains or a cage, I'd sure like to see the person who doesn't self-govern. Do you have even a single example?
Jim -
ReplyDeleteLove, obsession, hatred. A lot people do things based on these feeling and emotions then try to come up with a rational reason after the fact.
Do you like chease cake, if so why do you like it?
Did you use reason and logic to determine if you liked cheese cake, or is it you just do or do not like cheese cake.
As I have said governance and in particular self-governace is how you make your decisions, not just having the ability to make them. Think system, not the idividual action. Some people never even reason out a why they just do. Ever ask a child or even an adult why the they did something, and they go, "I don't know." This is anecdotal evidence at best, but I deal with a lot of people that do a lot if stupid things everyday, and when you dig it's usualy becase they did stop to think before they did.
I'm the one that defined my terms, and how I meant them. You just throw out words used and defined as you will, then treat those that might use or define them a little deferentially in a condescending manor.
You do not discuss things you lecture those around you. You coulde just say this why I disagree with you you hot to put in the dig with the first sentence of your response.
AP put up the discusion flow chart, a while back, learn it and use it.
PS. for Jim
ReplyDeleteMain Entry: ac·ci·dent
Pronunciation: \ˈak-sə-dənt, -ˌdent; ˈaks-dənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin accident-, accidens nonessential quality, chance, from present participle of accidere to happen, from ad- + cadere to fall — more at chance
Date: 14th century
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance
http://i.word.com/idictionary/accident
Jim you seem to me to be intimating that all decisions are made at the conscious level.
A good book on this is "Blink" it will all the examples and studies you are looking for from me.
So if someone is just reacting or doing with out conscious intent, and they just happen to get what they need. What would you call that.
Anarchies are inherently week because groups are stronger then individuals. So to compete individuals band together and know you are on the road to a state.
Josh, you seem to be saying that because having cheesecake is driven by want or emotion, that therefore it's not governed by the self. Sorry, I don't get that. I never will, so you can save yourself the energy. My advice is that you shouldn't open a cheesecake shop, for to whom shall you sell?
ReplyDeleteThe claim was not that the subconscious doesn't exist. Whose subconscious is that IYO?
As far as groups being stronger than individuals, I didn't know there were two distinct objects there. I don't reckon I'll ever understand that either. I never said that one individual is physcially stronger than 7 billion others, just that he's an individual. What are you trying to deny?
Also, why can't people band together and not be on a road to a State? Dan already pointed out that as soon as two people are interacting, agreements are involved and I readily acknowledged that. I still have no idea what you're trying to say.
Statism is the utopian ideal that just the right amount of violence directed by just the right people in just the right manner can perfect society.
ReplyDeleteAs to how warlords can (I hate to prescribe "how" to some future free persons) be handled, Somalia does present an example. Somali society is organized under clan or tribal lines. (Not as well as if European colonialism hadn't interrupted it for over a hundred years, but ...) As in most tribal society leaders (not "rulers" which are a completely different thing) are chosen for limited times with limited "authority" for specific purposes. Such choices are made based on specific skills, wisdom and abilities to the task requied.
ReplyDeleteIn the "Blackhawk Down" incident a member of a certain tribe was chosen to lead the resistance against US/UN intervention. Following the success of that resistance the "warlord" decided he should have greater authority for other purpose for a longer time. His own family ordered him killed for such hubris, and such was accomplished.
Jim are we talk about just existing or making decisions.
ReplyDeleteYes every one makes decisions not every one makes them with forethought and intension. The 'self' makes the decision this is volition.
Self-Governance is consciously deciding how we want to make those disitions, i.e., rules, ethics formal logic; compare, contrast, extrapolate (informal logic).
Governance to take control to guide. To consciously try to know the why, of the why we do things, as much as we can possible know anyways.
Jim you are using Self-Governance to mean just having the ability to make decisions (I use volition and the Founders used Self-determination.), that the self governs our actions. I get it.
Is it the word order you have a problem with? If I said, "Governing of the Self" or "Governance of Self," would you still have a problem understanding my point? Do I now need to use Discipline of the Self instead of Self-Discipline?
Words do not just stand a lone. They have meaning also in the context of how they are used. I believe I have give context to my point of view and the termns I have used. I know longer believe the fault is on my end of the discussion
Did anyone else have a problem understanding what I was try to convey?
Jim the Anarchy statement wasn't directed at anything you said, but was a genaral stament on Anarchy.
ReplyDeleteAs to why its a road; smaller groups are inherently weeker than larger groups, so to compete they invariably join into ever larger groups....
Groups are made up of individuals who as part of a group give up some if their identity to the group identity; at lest while they are acting for the group or representing the group.
Individuals can't act independently of the group or they are usualy excised from the group, for breaking the groups rules or customs. By joing a group you are saying, I give up some of my autonomy for security. Would we still be fighting the state if it represented us?
Question for all: How meany of us have had to apply are philosophies in the real world in life or death situations, until then what you know is a phantasy. (No need to answer out loud.)
Hmmm...
"Jim you are using Self-Governance to mean just having the ability to make decisions (I use volition and the Founders used Self-determination.), that the self governs our actions. I get it."
ReplyDeleteThen why are we five dozen comments deep into this? You seem to want to say that it doesn't count as "governance" unless we consciously consider the motivations behind it. Or maybe it's just when someone else controls it. I still don't know what your gripe is.
I wrote, "No governance? That's crazy too; we each govern ourselves. That's a plain fact."
I meant this is a plain fact, and it is. First you come back with, "You IMHO are talking about volition not governance. Most people are not self-aware enough to know why they do things..."
As if that has something to do with the "plain fact" I referenced, and now you're on about, "Governance to take control to guide," as if it doesn't count when we control ourselves.
Look, the plain fact is the plain fact. Every functional adult, when not in seizure or chains, controls every action of his body. Period. You don't wanna call that governance? Then don't; call it whatever you wish. I call it governance, because that's what governance is, in its standard meaning. No man's thoughts--or decisions, wishes, wants, whatever--control, OR GOVERN, my body, except mine.
What are you arguing about, anyway? Do you deny this or not? Are we "self-governed" as THIS means, or not?
"Did anyone else have a problem understanding what I was try to convey?"
I haven't the foggiest idea. Go ask 'em, if you care. Personally, I'm not yet convinced that YOU know what you're trying to convey!
Me, I was trying convey a plain fact. If you think it's not a plain fact, then explain why. But your idiosyncratic usage of "govern," or even mine for that matter, really doesn't affect whether or not this is a fact. I'd say we've taken enough of AP's blog with this, but if you've got something worthwhile to add--anything at all--then add it. I'm not trying to lecture here, Josh; I'm just trying to move forward and keep living.
When not in seizures, chains or cages, we each govern ourselves and that's that.
Well...either that or we get married!
sigh.... no longer
ReplyDeleteJim -
ReplyDeleteJim so your difinition is the only on you will except. Fine.
I was just trying to explain how I was using the word. So we can come to an understanding. Do not tell me what I ment.
The standard definitions of governance:
gov·er·nance (gvr-nns)
n.
1. The act, process, or power of governing; government: "Regaining a sense of the state is thus an absolute priority, not only for an effective policy against . . . terrorism, but also for governance itself" (Moorhead Kennedy).
2. The state of being governed.
and
governance [ˈgʌvənəns]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government, control, or authority
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the action, manner, or system of governing
You want to limit the definition of governace to yours, fine, then you need to define it. Don't just expect everyone to just see it your way.
You my friend are the first person that I've ever come across that has defined governance as just having the ability to make a decision. Everyone else I know uses Volition or Will. That how I base my understanding of the standard definition; how do those aroud me define and use words.
I was asking for clarification from you, by first informing you how I difine those terms.
But all you did was attack my difinitions. Read through what I wrote at no time did I ever attack or say what you said was in valid.
My brain hurts now.
PS. Just so we are clear, at no point did I ever say your difinition was invalid. I was only trying to point out that it is not the only definition and mine is just as valid as yours.
ReplyDelete"As if that has something to do with the "plain fact" I referenced, and now you're on about, "Governance to take control to guide," as if it doesn't count when we control ourselves." - Jim in reference to something I said.
ReplyDeleteThat is your own presumption as to my intent. In stead of asking you just assumed you where correct.
It is my position and others [ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain ] that not all actions are controled be reason. Are you the same person when you are hungrey? Do hormones control our moods and by extension what kind of decisions we make. There are meany outside influneces on how and why we make decisions. The self/ego sometimes isn't even very high on the list.
What I mean by control is limiting the factors that lead us to make poor choices, or at lest trying to understand how they effect us.
Control for you, I believe, is just having the abilities to make the choice, or just making the choice.
My position is just because you are in control of the decision doesn't mean you are controlling the decision process.
To me,you seem to be under the impresion that we on a consious level control every thing we do. That everything we do a rational act? That we all have the eneight ability to just control our actions and have the discipline of self to do so? (Right or Wrong? If wrong please help me to understand.)
Ok, I understand I can't use the word govern or governance to convey that we need to use a little forethought when we make decisions. Because of your inability to understand context and move beyond your narrow definition of what Govern and Governance means. What word would you use instead if you where in my position?
"Every functional adult, when not in seizure or chains, controls every action of his body." - Jim
ReplyDeleteSo, what was that doctor checking when he hit my knee with that small little hammer...
I once hit someone while he was trying to make me up. I don't remember doing it.
Hmmm...
It's called a reflex, Josh, and you can look at it as either a miniscule type of seizure or a miniscule form of being chained insofar as there's an involuntary external force being enacted upon the body.
ReplyDeleteYou're very frustrating, you know. I'm NOT talking about the words; I'm talking about the FACT of the matter.
I still haven't a clue---what the hell are you trying to deny? We don't walk around having our knees struck by doctors. We walk around and do things, and I'm just saying that EVERY thing we do, is controlled by our mental faculty...call it will, call it volition, call it governance, call it whatever you want. It's the FACT itself that matters here, and THIS is the relevant fact with regard to organizing ourselves consistently with our nature.
You appear to want to deny this, because we're not perfectly rational, or because we're emotional, or because we have a subconscious, or any number of other reasons. But none of those deny the plain FACT, that we are creatures of volition.
Why in the world do you care what it's called? My guess is, like so many others, you believe that if you CALL it something else, it'll BECOME something else. But that's just a guess...if you've got something more sensible, I'm all ears.
In the meanwhile, it'll stay as it is. It's relevant here because any attempt to live as if it's not that way, is doomed to failure...any and all words pretending otherwise notwithstanding.