A rational case for anarchism

[JihadJane]

by that standard, then the Werwolves were legitimate after WW2, or the KKK in the post ACW south.

If the Taliban had no legitimacy in Afghanistan no-one would fight for them.

 

[Virus]

Which assumptions were those?

The assumption that society doesn't need a police force.

In the case of a "police force," this would not exist either as a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. Such a system would "not be entrusted to, as it is today, to a special, official body: all able-bodied inhabitants [of a commune] will be called upon to take turns in the security measures instituted by the commune." [James Guillaume, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 371] This system would be based around a voluntary militia system,

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Can't wait to live in the Commune under the Militia boys. Anarchy sounds like such fun.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The Bolsheviks had no legitimacy, yet many fought for them, likewise with the Khmer Rouge or the Shining Path.

 

[Earthborn]

You were suggesting that they were on a moral par with French Resistance cells by referring to them as resistance.

I don't think calling a group "resistance" necessarily implies a positive moral judgement.

by that standard, then the Werwolves were legitimate after WW2, or the KKK in the post ACW south.

I think when JihadJane uses the term "legitimacy" she means "legitimacy in the eyes of it supporters", not legitimacy in some sort of absolute morality.

 

[Pardalis]

Yes it is and to the tune of millions of dollars.

They're paying some of them off so they don't attack their convoys. That's not funding their activities.

 

[Pardalis]

If you don't think that the Taliban are resisting the US occupation of Afghanistan, who is, because the occupation isn't going very well, for some reason?

Do you think Afghanistan would be better off under Taliban rule? If they took power again, it wouldn't be anarchy, it would be a theocracy, and a very brutal one.

 

[Earthborn]

The assumption that society doesn't need a police force.

Your example of Montreal in 1969 does not disprove the argument made on the Anarchist FAQ. It argues that crime is caused by "the type of society by which people are moulded" (IMHO trivially true) so a society in which people are moulded in a certain way that leads to crime will have crime when the police goes on strike. The FAQ is seems confident that we know how to structure a society that doesn't mould people in this way; unlike Noam Chomsky's (IMHO trivially true) idea that we have no clue.

Both believe that there must be a way to structure a society in such a way. I don't think that is necessarily true; and I don't have to assume "there is some perversity of human nature" unchangeable by how people are treated. Anarchists assume that the problem of crime is cause by how people "moulded" and therefore think that one could solve it by "moulding" them differently. To me that sounds a bit like technobabble in Star Trek. Just because one polarity caused you to get into trouble does not in the real world mean you can undo everything by reversing the polarity. If you mixed your tea and milk by stirring clockwise, it does not mean you can separate them again by stirring anticlockwise; many political philosophies however assume that one can.

 

[Earthborn]

They're paying some of them off so they don't attack their convoys. That's not funding their activities.

I'll bet the Taliban considers it "funding" as I doubt they put it in separate funds. Getting paid for not doing things, it's practically free money!

 

[Virus]

I'll bet the Taliban considers it "funding" as I doubt they put it in separate funds. Getting paid for not doing things, it's practically free money!

Yes but JJ was stretching the definition of "funding the Taliban" in order to draw a moral equivalence with Iran's terrorist sponsoring efforts in Afghanistan.

She was trying to say America has no right to criticize state sponsors of terrorism because they're doing it too.

But I've had this argument a million times before with extremist leftists. If they lose that argument they'll just say that airstrikes on military targets are terrorism, or sanctions are terrorism ect.

 

[Naddig74]

Paying Afghans not to slaughter and rob is an old tradition. One of the reasons we got booted out in 1842 was because the Hill Tribes 'subsidy' (read bribe to not sack caravans of food and ammo) was cut.

The other two reasons were called Broadfoot and Elphinstone.

 

[Virus]

Anarchists:

 

[Virus]

JihadJane, you earlier asked for evidence that the Iran funds the Taliban;

Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives to select Taliban members.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122436.htm

 

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

Here he equates necessity with legitimacy; the institutions are only legitimate if they are necessary. Since authority and domination in some form are necessary because we do not understand enough of human societies to be without them, they remain legitimate until we do understand enough.

You contradict yourself here. You charge him with equating necesity and legitimacy, and then go on to assert the exact same thing. Clearly, you would still disagree whether or not he had said "...will remain [unnecessary]," instead of "illegitimate."

It should be noted that human societies are today rapidly increasing in complexity, which might mean we may never understand them well enough.

This sounds like an argument from ignorance. Noam is still right. Any supporter of any form of governmental expansion, regulation, or otherwise monopoly on force of the rest of society does hold the burden of proof.

Doesn't the same logic apply if I insisted you need prescription glasses? Wouldn't I hold the burden of proving that in fact, you do?

If we lived in a world with out an adequate understanding of optometry, I could simply argue that you need glasses, because we don't understand enough about eye science. So put them on and shut up.

 

[dudalb]

Do you think Afghanistan would be better off under Taliban rule? If they took power again, it wouldn't be anarchy, it would be a theocracy, and a very brutal one.

Not to mention that Al Qaida and company would be back in business in Afghanistan within a Year, and within a couple of years we would have probabl have to go back in....again.

 

[dudalb]

Paying Afghans not to slaughter and rob is an old tradition. One of the reasons we got booted out in 1842 was because the Hill Tribes 'subsidy' (read bribe to not sack caravans of food and ammo) was cut.

The other two reasons were called Broadfoot and Elphinstone.

Colonel Flashman has written some interesting commentary on Elphy Bay.

 

[WildCat]

Paying Afghans not to slaughter and rob is an old tradition. One of the reasons we got booted out in 1842 was because the Hill Tribes 'subsidy' (read bribe to not sack caravans of food and ammo) was cut.

The other two reasons were called Broadfoot and Elphinstone.

As the old saying goes "you can rent an Afghan, but you cannot buy him".

It's interesting to note that the fighters claimed to be "Taliban" are usually just rent-a-guns from local tribes. If they really had loyalty to the Taliban or resentment towards the coalition they wouldn't let materiel go through for any price. These are local tribes exploiting the war industry, one of the few available to them.

If the Taliban pay them they'll fight for the Taliban, if we pay them (and we do) they'll fight for us. Political ideology has virtually nothing to do with it. Your typical Afghan warlord switched sides several times durig the Soviet war, and many more times during the civil war that followed. You need hourly updates to find out who's on whose side at the moment.

 

[Earthborn]

You contradict yourself here. You charge him with equating necesity and legitimacy, and then go on to assert the exact same thing.

I don't "charge him" with equating those things, I just note that he does. I don't go on to assert the same thing, I just take Chomsky's argument to its logical conclusion: if necessity implies legitimacy, and something is necessary because no one knows how to be without it, then it is legitimate.

This sounds like an argument from ignorance.

Chomsky's argument is indeed an argument from ignorance of some sorts: that we can't have a functional anarchistic society unless we know more about how to structure complex systems.Taken to its logical conclusion it means we are moving anarchy is increasingly unlikely, as human societies tend toward greater complexity.

Noam is still right. Any supporter of any form of governmental expansion, regulation, or otherwise monopoly on force of the rest of society does hold the burden of proof.

Noam argument also opens the door for such to answer the burden of proof: a supporter of any form of governmental expansion, regulation or monopoly of force needs only to show that knowledge is lacking on how to effectively do things without them.

Doesn't the same logic apply if I insisted you need prescription glasses? Wouldn't I hold the burden of proving that in fact, you do?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it relates to the argument. I do know that I wouldn't expect you to hold the burden of proof that I do need prescription glasses, because I know I do need prescription glasses.

If we lived in a world with out an adequate understanding of optometry, I could simply argue that you need glasses, because we don't understand enough about eye science.

The anarchist argument seems to be more similar to arguing that I don't need prescription glasses if only I trained my eyes in just the right way. Chomsky's argument would be similar to saying that nobody knows what the right way is. I take Chomsky's argument to its logical conclusion and conclude that if nobody knows the right way to train one's eyes to see fine without glasses, I might as well wear my glasses.

So put them on and shut up.

I love my glasses, so I have no problem putting them on, though I won't necessarily shut up about them.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

Noam argument also opens the door for such to answer the burden of proof: a supporter of any form of governmental expansion, regulation or monopoly of force needs only to show that knowledge is lacking on how to effectively do things without them.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it relates to the argument. I do know that I wouldn't expect you to hold the burden of proof that I do need prescription glasses, because I know I do need prescription glasses.

The anarchist argument seems to be more similar to arguing that I don't need prescription glasses if only I trained my eyes in just the right way. Chomsky's argument would be similar to saying that nobody knows what the right way is. I take Chomsky's argument to its logical conclusion and conclude that if nobody knows the right way to train one's eyes to see fine without glasses, I might as well wear my glasses.

I love my glasses, so I have no problem putting them on, though I won't necessarily shut up about them.

Probably a bad choice of analogy, I see your avatar has glasses, is that you?

Shouldn't have been relevant. (I have glasses too, well contact lenses usually, and optomotrists and my own observation have in fact proven that I see better with them)

The point I'm making is that government is an extraneous solution. As are prescription glasses. If the world of optometry were argued "too complex to ever understand," we wouldn't just demand that all humans wear glasses, and then declare to a group of glasses skeptics that you must prove you don't need them, but for now you're going to wear them.

Instead, we do not wear them by default, and if there's evidence we have trouble seeing, we apply the extraneous solution. Hence, burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim that we need an extraneous government solution for any issue.

It honestly reminds me of Pascal's wager in a way, ie - We can't prove that there isn't a need for government, so let's just play it safe and apply (sometimes oppressive and destructive) authority over people.

 

[Naddig74]

Colonel Flashman has written some interesting commentary on Elphy Bay.

Flashy is where I get most of my Victorian History...He was Brigadier General Sir Harry Paget Flashman, V.C, K.C.B, K.C.I.E. by the time he wrote his memoirs

 

[Virus]

The question is why should anarchists be listened to? In the liberal West things are pretty good for most people. The rules are generally fair, the punishments are not unjust and the governments tolerate criticism. Standards of living are high.

Given that this is the case, why should we chuck that in for a violent revolution? Why should the people who advocate this be listened to?

The burden of proof is on these people. They need to put up their "rational case for anarchism" and the skeptics are going to smack it from all angles and look for holes to poke in it. If it can't stand up then it doesn't warrant being taken seriously.