A rational case for anarchism

[INRM]

Anarchism is a terrible idea

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

What mechanism do you propose for the removal of government?

It just has to end by consent. It's dangerous to violently overthrow the government, and entirely fruitless if the concept of government still has validity with the general populace.

Unfortunately, I think total economic collapse might be one of the few things that can bring about the end of states. I don't advocate near-total economic collapse, but it seems inevitable as long as the state remains.

The only other alternative is for government to roll back to a minarchist position in a desperate attempt to correct the economy, but I think it's too late for that. The debts cannot be paid back. Thanks to years of state propaganda spewed forth in public schools, it would be politically unacceptable. It would only be delaying the inevitable in any case.

Suppose a group of people get together and decide it is in their best interest to rape and pillage their weaker neighbors. How does anarchism answer that?

A government is a group of people who have gotten together to pillage their weaker neighbours. Or, to be more precise, it's one armed with legitimacy and too much power for anyone to try and overthrow.

The only way a group of bandits is going to last long-term is if the populace supports them, i.e. if they have legitimacy. i.e if they are a state.

You're asking, how would anarchists respond to banditry? Well... They would oppose it. Just because no one has a monopoly on force, it doesn't mean that it cannot be applied in need. Of course we can't use force against the state, because they have an essential monopoly on it with tanks and nukes and carpet bombers, but we could use it against a bunch of hoods who have the same weapons we do.

Such a group would not be able to survive for very long without legitimacy, and once it has that, it's a state. The very thing anarchists despise.

Of course decent people are only more powerful BECAUSE of organizing, but, umm <Jedi hand wave>

I've got nothing against people voluntarily organising. It's coercion that I have a problem with.

Around here, the decent people live in family groups and don't practice violent anti-social behaviour, and thus aren't accustomed to it.

The scumbags however, already hang around together in large groups, enjoy violence and mayhem for it's own sake, and practice it as much as they can get away with already by terrorising the decent people.

If you remove the Police from the equation, the decent folk are left to defend themselves, outnumbered, outclassed and outgunned against the scumbags.

There is an immediate monopoly of force. It's held by the scumbags.

Okay... You believe there are vast herds of violent malcontents roaming the streets and preying on the innocent. I think you may have been watching too much cable news, but anyway... If this were the case, then how is it possible that the minority of decent people are actually in control of the government? We have a democratic system. Or at least... That's what everyone thinks we have, and I'm willing to concede that it is. Unless you think the political system in America, say, is not democratic, and you approve of it not being democratic, then how can you reconcile your belief in the legitimacy of the democratic state with your belief that most people are violent hoods?

How can you believe that the shmucks you do get in the streets have a monopoly on force? Do they have F-22 air superiority fighters and white phosphorus and nuclear bombs? The state does. Against hoods, they can use tanks and machine guns and overwhelming force of numbers, if they wanted to. They do, when it's to the state's advantage.

All of human history shows the opposite is true.

Once more: If your statement were true, there would have been no need for the decent people to create a monopoly of force, nor would there have been any ability for the scumbags to impose it, and therefore there would be no monopoly on force now.

All of human history has existed at the same time as state governemnts. Are you alleging that more people have died from private criminal causes than have died in all the wars, genocides and famines induced by states? Your view of history is one distorted by state propaganda.

My premise is not broken. My premise is that the state was not created by decent people... It was created by deluded, megalomaniacal priests in ancient Sumeria and decent people have simply been fooled into it ever since, the same as religion. If you can convince someone that their lord and saviour is a two-thousand year dead Jewish revolutionary, then you can convince them of any goddammed thing. It's not difficult to do when you force everyone to send their kids to state education camps every day for twelve-odd years. Holy crap, if priests were allowed to do that, this board would not exist. Or at least it would be MUCH smaller.

Think about that for a moment. If the government is universally criminal, what makes you think individuals in an anarchistic society would act any better?

Because they'd HAVE TO if they wanted to prosper in society. Governments are universally criminal because the very concept of a government is criminal - forcibly take from everyone, redistribute as you see fit, send millions to die in war... I don't think people are universally bad. If they are, then there's no point arguing this crap, and we might as well all go and chew someone's eye out right now. It's just that governments, by their criminal nature, are always run by criminals. They attract them like flies to excrement.

There are always going to be those scumbags, but they are going to be a lot less of a problem if they aren't in government.

Protection from criminals? 100% Protection from Chinese military invasion? 100%

So it's the Chinese you fear? Do you think the Chinese race is inherently savage and ruthless, or do you recognise that it's the existence of the Chinese state that is the problem here? Because I'm against all of them, you know. Not just yours. The Chinese one is not a great deal better than the American one... Worse to its own citizens, generally, but immeasurably better to foreignors, so you decide if that balances out. Maybe it does from where you're sitting. China hasn't embarked on war since their little episode in Vietnam, and they aren't about to... Certainly not in the first world, anyway. Your government has already sold you to them. They really do not need to invade you.

For defense against other people? I do not recognize such a thing. Guns are terrible defensive weapon and there is no single person in America who should carry one.

(I don't mean to debate gun control. I only mean to point out that your claim that I "must surely" concede the point is incorrect.)

I was thinking more along the lines of animals, actually. Maybe you'd have a friendly sit-down with the angry elephant, but that doesn't usually end well for the human.

You get bears and mountain lions there, don't you?

Anyway, it's not important. I agree with you, I think, that not a single person in America, or anywhere else, should, philosophically, carry a firearm with the intended purpose of shooting other people. I don't think it's any better to give them all to the state, though. In fact, it's a lot worse than just letting people have them if they feel they need them. The reason for that is that if the innocent person suddenly needs one as much as the criminal, they go out and buy one for self-defence, and suddenly its exceptionally dangerous for anyone to attack anyone else out of the blue. No, it's not perfect, but it's better than giving them all to the lunatics in uniform.

What do you do about the problem of the free rider? The one farmer out of one hundred who refuses to pay for the security services? His land, smack in the middle of all the paying customers, benefits from the increased security. Yet he won't pay for it.

What kind of security are you envisioning? Surely they'd only need to patrol, stake-out and investigate crimes on the land of those who pay?

If that means that the criminals start to exclusively target the idiot who doesn't pay, then all the better for those that do. There's no need for coercion on the part of innocent people.

You seem to believe that every individual lives alone on a plot of land that is equally accessable to criminals and customers along a snaking ribbon of highway that magically grants equal access by anyone to anyone. That belief is false.

No... I don't believe that. I don't know how you got to that interpretation, quite frankly. If that were the case, then boycotting someone from the community wouldn't be a terribly powerful punishment at all.

If someone has committed a crime serious enough to warrant a boycott by the community at large, then their right of unlimited secession means that they can pack their bags and get out, or stay and be an unwelcome pariah with whom no one will do business. I think that's fair, provided people are individually able to choose whether to boycott or not, and there's no coercion involved.

The reasons why Switzerland has stayed clear of war is: 1) It's surrounded entirely by mountains, making it a remarkable inconvenient place to invade; 2) It is relatively homogeneous in ethnicity and wealth (compared to the US, at least); and 3) it hasn't stayed clear of war and your belief that it has is based on nothing other than myth. I seem to remember some very pointed accusations that Switzerland had just acceded to the demands of whomever happened to be strongest - including Germany during WWII - in order to make itself less of a target for invasion.

I agree that it is hard to invade and hold, which is why a central imperial state - whether based in Paris, Berlin, Bern, or anywhere else - has never been terribly powerful, until very recently, with the rise of modern technology.

Is 'ethnically homogenous' shorthand for 'white', or what? A third are Italian, a third are Germans and a third are French. I mean, really... These are the nation-states that ripped each other's children to bloody shreds a half-century ago. It's a bloody miracle, on the face of it, that Switzerland never went the way of Yugoslavia or Rwanda at any stage, and it's because of the canton system and an incredibly free economy.

I know Switzerland has gone to war once upon a time... But they haven't done it for a very long time, and notably they didn't do it in the 20th Century, which eclipses all the others in terms of blood. I'm not holding Switzerland up as a perfect example in any case... There is still a central state, it just works somewhat differently to most others, at least until quite recently.

Can we drop the Switzerland thing? I was only pointing out that their loose mountain topography led to isolated communities in the cantons which has led to their unique democratic style of government and relative pacificism in recent times. Their prosperty is due to a relative weakness of the central state, especially in the economy. I know it's not perfect, and I know it's not anarchism.

Wrong. You've got it backwards. The state monopoly on force is what makes the weak just as powerful as the strong. My 95 lb. client had no fear of her 295 lb. ex-husband yesterday in Family Court. The law, and nothing else, made her his equal.

So would a .357 magnum, and it wouldn't hurt anyone other than him.

Oh, but you're against guns! Except... You love guns if its Officer Leeroy pointing it. I hate to call you hypocritical, but I challenge on you to refute the allegation. What difference does the badge make? When the state forces your client's ex-husband to pay her maintenance, they do it at gun-point. If he doesn't comply, they take him to a rape-camp, and if he resists, they will shoot him. You clearly believe this is moral. So why would it be immoral for your client to have simply cut to the chase?

(You wouldn't have got your cheque then, I guess. Apologies for a cheap shot, especially if you ain't getting a cheque. )

There'd be no need to steal tens of thousands of dollars from the innocent taxpayer, at gunpoint, to pay for the police who brought him in, the lawyers, the judge, and the overpaid civil servants who officiated the case.

I'm not saying the government is incapable of doing good absolutely, but it's certainly incapable of doing a net good, and there's always a better way.

How about in the reverse: when you are the one getting abused as opposed to the abuser... do you then have an obligation (though not enforced by a "state") to abuse (not just stop, but abuse, incl. torture, etc.) the abuser?

Do you? From whence would such an obligation arise?

You have a natural obligation to defend yourself, of course. Only a natural one.

 

[Naddig74]

Okay... You believe there are vast herds of violent malcontents roaming the streets and preying on the innocent. I think you may have been watching too much cable news, but anyway...

I don't believe anything, I only have to look out of my window to see the disgusting scrotes who hang around the streets round here, flinging bottles at passers by, writing on walls, hurling racist abuse. Two years ago I was attacked by a gang of no less than 12 teenagers who just wanted to chin someone. I can hear them whistling to each other now. They wear their ASBOs like badges of honour.

how can you reconcile your belief in the legitimacy of the democratic state with your belief that most people are violent hoods?

I don't believe most people are violent hoods. I know from personal experience that most people are too afraid of violence and mayhem to help someone else who is being beaten up by a large gang of violent hoods.

ETA: Earthborn's post brought this back to my attention:

But the whole reason we need a state is because most people are ********, and would go on the rampage without one... It's self-contradictory, folks! It's actually quite insane, and I mean that entirely literally. If most people weren't ********, then we wouldn't need a state! ?

I'm confused...are they or aren't they?

 

[Earthborn]

But the whole reason we need a state is because most people are ********, and would go on the rampage without one... It's self-contradictory, folks! It's actually quite insane, and I mean that entirely literally. If most people weren't ********, then we wouldn't need a state!

No, the reason we have a state is because very few people are a bunch of asteriskses, but those few people can do a whole lot of damage. The decent people are afraid of that and want to be protected against it, which makes them willing to accept an authority over them if they feel it protects them.

If most people are ********, then we're screwed no matter what we do, but having a state just empowers them further!

If most people were that way, no state could survive. Any form of human organisation would have too much internal strife.

You are always going to have scumbags in society, I think... But they are outnumbered by decent people.

The numbers are not as important as the damage the "scumbags" might do. And let's think about your logic further: you are always going to have anarchists in society, but they are outnumbered by people who are willing to submit to government authority. Heck, most anarchists are perfectly willing to; often their most rebellious acts are posts on the internet.

A state is a monopoly on force. A state empowers evil, and does nothing good that decent people could not have done of their own individual volition.

The state is the result of people doing things of their own individual volition. Often quite decent people too, though not always perfectly competent.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

No, the reason we have a state is because very few people are a bunch of asteriskses, but those few people can do a whole lot of damage. The decent people are afraid of that and want to be protected against it, which makes them willing to accept an authority over them if they feel it protects them.

I think this is what most people believe too, because they have been indoctrinated into it. What do states protect people against that those people could not protect themselves against through voluntary associations?

If most people were that way, no state could survive. Any form of human organisation would have too much internal strife.

Agreed, I think. A state is actually only going to be advantageous to evil people if there are good, or at least naive, people to profit from. If someone has absolutely no interest in helping others, then one can think of few justifications for a state... Perhaps highly militaristic and autocratic states could exist, but as you correctly point out, these do not last long. They are simply too inefficient from an economic point of view.

The numbers are not as important as the damage the "scumbags" might do. And let's think about your logic further: you are always going to have anarchists in society, but they are outnumbered by people who are willing to submit to government authority. Heck, most anarchists are perfectly willing to; often their most rebellious acts are posts on the internet.

Once again, you are correct. I am not optimistic.

The state has to bring about total economic collapse, though. Once that happens... Maybe the survivors will see. Maybe not. Maybe there won't be any survivors.

Still... Where was atheism prior to the Enlightenment? It was still correct back then, despite being unpopular.

The state is the result of people doing things of their own individual volition. Often quite decent people too, though not always perfectly competent.

Yes... Agents of the state coerce others by their own individual volition. You are correct. They are ********. Of course, their position is justified with propaganda. Those being coerced aren't consenting, though.

I don't believe anything, I only have to look out of my window to see the disgusting scrotes who hang around the streets round here, flinging bottles at passers by, writing on walls, hurling racist abuse. Two years ago I was attacked by a gang of no less than 12 teenagers who just wanted to chin someone. I can hear them whistling to each other now. They wear their ASBOs like badges of honour.

I don't know where you're from, but it reminds me of London.

I don't believe most people are violent hoods. I know from personal experience that most people are too afraid of violence and mayhem to help someone else who is being beaten up by a large gang of violent hoods.

Yeah, if they don't have their guns, or at least tasers, gas and riot gear, most cops are just as afraid, don't you worry.

I mean, it's only rational to be afraid of someone better armed than you are. If neither of you are armed, it's rational to be afraid of someone/a group more physically powerful than you.

I don't want to sound like an NRA nut, but you know that guns and associated violent toys are the only thing that give the cops their power.

Look... I know not everyone likes toting heat themselves. Hence, there is a market for private security to do it for you if you want, or community security if you assent to it when you move in.

 

[Pantaz]

I don't want to sound like an NRA nut, but you know that guns and associated violent toys are the only thing that give the cops their power.

Unarmed parking enforcement officers make me nervous.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

Unarmed parking enforcement officers make me nervous.

That's because they can demand money from you, and if you refuse or resist you will quite quickly have their armed colleagues show up to take you away.

 

[CplFerro]

Anarchy: a good idea, in principle, but one that, to implement, requires the transformation of the culture in a profound way. Anarchism will never arrive through anger, violence, or marginal debates on the Internet. It has to come as a result of society first, being convinced of the existence of the eternal Ideas, and second, employing same Ideas to the point of supersaturation of the existing culture. At that point, when everyone, or virtually everyone, is operating mentally in terms of Ideas or principles, the Law will wither away as all questionable situations will be resolved on a case by case basis by the available relevantly-educated temporary authorities.

Anarchy is ultimately optimistic in that it presupposes, whether it knows it or not, a universe in which all principles, all Ideas, interlock perfectly to form an indivisible whole, the reflection of that is seen in the anticipated Anarchist civilisation. Anarchisms which do not accept the existence of Ideas are hopeless.

The recommendation?

(1) Study the great Ideas as a method of acquiring the necessary building blocks for the Anarchy.

(2) As per 1, consider how the General Welfare can be advanced through said Ideas. Anarchist Culture will not arrive overnight, and in the meantime there are problems that only the Ship of State can address.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

(2) As per 1, consider how the General Welfare can be advanced through said Ideas. Anarchist Culture will not arrive overnight, and in the meantime there are problems that only the Ship of State can address.

Like what?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Like what?

Your avatar looks immensely clubbable. I claim my rights as a Canadian. Who's to stop me?

 

[Policenaut]

Anarchy promotes survival of the fittest. And the fittest are usually barbaric monsters more interested in protecting their power than anything else. So once the government collapses you think no one is going to try to control sections of the country? Gangs will rule. So anarchists are against this. What are you going to do about it? Will you risk your life to stand up to them? See Afghanistan and the Taliban. That is the result of anarchy mixed with twisted religious fanaticism. Sure it would be different in the US. The inhuman thugs over here would bask in excesses but would be no less ruthless in killing anyone who opposed them and making the rest of the population subservient. Gangs would expand unimpeded and become even more violent than they already are now with no fear of reprisal by police. If gangs can take over prisons what do you think they could do unleashed on society with no opposition except "good people"? It's quite easy to see where things would go. We just have to look at Mexico. The gangs practically run that country. If what government they have disappeared Mexico would probably become our third war front. I think you underestimate the scale, sophistication, organization, firepower and violence of current nationwide gangs.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Anarchy promotes survival of the fittest. And the fittest are usually barbaric monsters more interested in protecting their power than anything else. So once the government collapses you think no one is going to try to control sections of the country? Gangs will rule. So anarchists are against this. What are you going to do about it? Will you risk your life to stand up to them? See Afghanistan and the Taliban. That is the result of anarchy mixed with twisted religious fanaticism. Sure it would be different in the US. The inhuman thugs over here would bask in excesses but would be no less ruthless in killing anyone who opposed them and making the rest of the population subservient. Gangs would expand unimpeded and become even more violent than they already are now with no fear of reprisal by police. If gangs can take over prisons what do you think they could do unleashed on society with no opposition except "good people"? It's quite easy to see where things would go. We just have to look at Mexico. The gangs practically run that country. If what government they have disappeared Mexico would probably become our third war front. I think you underestimate the scale, sophistication, organization, firepower and violence of current nationwide gangs.

So the good people would have to band together. They could organize themselves into committees and get the best people to solve each problem. Some of these people would have to do the job full time so the others could pool their resources to pay them a salary. Things would be controlled by a committee of folks elected to look after the whole process and soon good people could get on with their lives and their families live in peace. AND THEY WOULD HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

Is this so hard to understand?

 

[WildCat]

When do we get to hear the rational case for anarchism?

 

[Darth Rotor]

A rational case for anarchism.

There isn't one. Anarchy predated reason.

 

[Michael Redman]

All of human history has existed at the same time as state governemnts.

Exactly. Because there is no other way to organize a functioning civil society.

 

[Madalch]

So would a .357 magnum, and it wouldn't hurt anyone other than him.

Unless, of course, he took the bullets out of it while she was sleeping. Then he takes it away from her and clubs her to death with it.

 

[Policenaut]

So the good people would have to band together. They could organize themselves into committees and get the best people to solve each problem. Some of these people would have to do the job full time so the others could pool their resources to pay them a salary. Things would be controlled by a committee of folks elected to look after the whole process and soon good people could get on with their lives and their families live in peace. AND THEY WOULD HAVE A GOVERNMENT.

Is this so hard to understand?

That's crazy. You're crazy. It would never work.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

Your avatar looks immensely clubbable. I claim my rights as a Canadian. Who's to stop me?

Clubbing me, or clubbing a seal?

I'd do my damndest to prevent the former.

Anarchy promotes survival of the fittest. And the fittest are usually barbaric monsters more interested in protecting their power than anything else. So once the government collapses you think no one is going to try to control sections of the country? Gangs will rule. So anarchists are against this. What are you going to do about it? Will you risk your life to stand up to them?

If they possessed similar firepower to me and my associates, why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anyone?

I've had to defend myself from criminals before. The police have never been there when they strike, funnily enough.

I can't defend myself against the state, because they have more guns and tanks and bombs than anyone else.

Anarchy promotes survival of the fittest. And the fittest are usually barbaric monsters more interested in protecting their power than anything else. So once the government collapses you think no one is going to try to control sections of the country? Gangs will rule. So anarchists are against this. What are you going to do about it? Will you risk your life to stand up to them? See Afghanistan and the Taliban. That is the result of anarchy mixed with twisted religious fanaticism. Sure it would be different in the US. The inhuman thugs over here would bask in excesses but would be no less ruthless in killing anyone who opposed them and making the rest of the population subservient. Gangs would expand unimpeded and become even more violent than they already are now with no fear of reprisal by police. If gangs can take over prisons what do you think they could do unleashed on society with no opposition except "good people"? It's quite easy to see where things would go. We just have to look at Mexico. The gangs practically run that country. If what government they have disappeared Mexico would probably become our third war front. I think you underestimate the scale, sophistication, organization, firepower and violence of current nationwide gangs.

I think you overestimate the difference between a nationwide gang and a state.

Why do nation-wide criminal gangs exist? Would it be possible for them to exist without a black market revenue stream created by government prohibition and economic sanction? Would their business be viable if everyone had equal effective access to the weapons they do, and there weren't government restrictions against innocent people defending themselves? Would death and violence be the most economically viable way of settling disputes if there were a cheap and peaceful dispute resolution mechanism available to the industries organised crime typically operates?

Afghanistan has been at war with someone for the past... I don't know, it's the Graveyard of Empires. To blame that place's misery on anything other than governments is utterly, utterly myopic.

Who funded the creation of the Taliban, hmm? It was dear old Uncle Sam, in his fight against the Ruskies! He used your parent's tax money to do it, of course, because he's a bum. Don't you know this?

Statism is survival of the fittest in terms of who can get the idiots riled up enough to vote for them. Everything must be survival of the fittest in some respect.

 

[BNRT]

If they possessed similar firepower to me and my associates, why wouldn't I? Why wouldn't anyone?

Because:

1: I value my life.
2. I have no training using firearms or dealing with gang wars.
c) I'd hazard a guess that people without special training are likelier to die in a fire fight.
4: I could (quite possibly) die while standing up to the gang. (See 1)

Therefore, I'd rather have someone else do that for me.

 

[r0ast_p0tat0es]

Because:

1: I value my life.
2. I have no training using firearms or dealing with gang wars.
c) I'd hazard a guess that people without special training are likelier to die in a fire fight.
4: I could (quite possibly) die while standing up to the gang. (See 1)

Therefore, I'd rather have someone else do that for me.

Yeah, I'd also rather have someone else do it for me, which is why we pay a private armed response company $100 a month to come and rescue us in case of trouble. But in a situation where no one else is able to do it for me, I would defend myself, as I have done before.

No thanks to the police, gang warfare is an isolated problem in South Africa, only really affecting certain bad neighbourhoods in the Cape outside of the state prison system, where it is absolutely massive. Thanks for nothing, state incarceration...

Crime is bad here, but it's not likely to be more than a handful of guys at a time, not all of them armed, and they tend to run when lead starts flying their way.

There are a lot of things I'd rather not do myself, but while one has to accept the inevitably of a certain unpleasantness in life, there's a great deal that you can pay others to do for you.