Anarchy is the new Atheism

[FireGarden]

Anarchy in the sense of "I don't believe there are people in charge".

A view of government that has it pretending it can command the tides.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2008/08/25/anarchism-the-new-atheism/

Yes, governments lie. They are corrupt to varying degrees. They take credit for a good economy and blame others when the economy is bad. But they have a real influence, too.

There are basic things a government must be able to do, such as organise enough food, fuel, etc. These aren't illusions. And there are governments that have managed such logistics for a good long time.

The bits that caught my attention:

We are deeply embedded in the context that some universal system must exist to explain civilized society just as many believe that life cannot be explained without an intelligent designer. They may feel the system has become corrupt but lack the vocabulary to discuss what that means or to come to consistent logical conclusions about the nature of that corruption.

[...] In a recent post, I inspired a lot of angry comments when I spoke a rhetorical question, “How do you gently convince a person that their god doesn’t exist and they won’t be going to Heaven when they die?” The point of the rhetorical question was to point out that such a powerful message that conflicts with lifelong core beliefs, whether true or not, cannot be conveyed gently and tactfully.

[...] As an atheist, when I consider a vast institution like the Catholic church, I see actors in fancy costumes, engaged in elaborate ceremonies, and ultimately putting on an intricate show meant to reinforce the fragile fallacy at the core of it all, the existence of a supreme being that created the universe. As an anarchist I see government the same way. Yes, the agents of government most definitely exist just as churches and priests exist. Government has its elaborate costumes and ceremonies all meant to reinforce the fragile fallacy at the core, that there is some supreme authority that its human agents represent. It’s that supreme authority that I do not believe in, and without it the rest is comically absurd.

[...] If you pray for a loved one with cancer and they recover, God gets credit. If they fail to recover, God doesn’t get the blame. Praying won’t help but chemotherapy or surgery might. Both religion and authoritarian government represent illusions that provide a degree of false comfort to believers.

[...] Anarchy most literally means “no rulers” (not no rules). To me it means a lack of belief in the authority of government. In place of that true authority, we have substituted costumes like military and police uniforms, or black dresses on judges propped up on pedestals above the “normal” people, and rituals like elections and declarations of freedom and constitutional conventions. In place of real authority we have the constant threat of violence for disobeying. Of course I believe in and fear that violence which is why I still dance when they fire bullets at my feet.

[...] Whether you share the views of the anarchist or not, realize that he broadens the vocabulary of the discussion about liberty. The anarchist if nothing else is a devil’s advocate, challenging the very right of anyone to establish a monopoly on violence, and forcing government to put up a better defense for its own validity. Such a challenge has the power to actually make government better, to discourage governments from pushing the boundaries of their control ever outward and infringing ever more deeply into our personal rights. I personally believe that such a challenge is the only thing that can actually shrink the reach and power of government.

I suppose I should comment over there.
Maybe later.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

You wouldn't have been the first to noticed this. I think a great deal of the general public's dislike (to put it mildly) toward atheism is because they attribute it to a form of anarchism. For the most part, people want to feel that "someone" is in charge of the universe; making the cosmic trains run on time, punishing the wrong doer, rewarding the "good citizen." A lot of people can't bring themselves to accept the possibility that the "bad" people will not get 'justice" dispensed upon them, whether in this life of a apocryphal afterlife. It's better to think that the criminal who escaped justice from our legal system due to a lack of evidence or a technicality will get their comeuppance in Hell than to think he'll die unpunished.

I've often found it odd that some of the most vocal supporters of "limited government" (well, limited in regards to their bank accounts and gun cabinets*) also tend to be the most virulently religious and demand that the state impose their version of morality on others. Overcompensation, perhaps?

*I'm speaking as a gun owner and general supporter of private enterprise.

 

[ladyattis]

I don't necessarily agree that the belief in the necessity of the State is in itself a religious or faith-based practice. I think what people do is confuse social order, rules, and institutions for the need of a strong-arm-like system in which force is always necessary to get things done.

Some governments do actually work by talking and reasoning at least that's what I've read about in some localities here in the US. And some act like they really need to punch someone in the head just to get hello out of them as well. It's the matter of what premise one operates by which defines how the governments will act in kind: either humans are capable of rational and moral actions or they are not. If it is the latter then you get a government defined by violence, abuse, and general tyranny. If it is the former as a premise you get an open society.

 

[FireGarden]

You wouldn't have been the first to noticed this. I think a great deal of the general public's dislike (to put it mildly) toward atheism is because they attribute it to a form of anarchism. For the most part, people want to feel that "someone" is in charge of the universe; making the cosmic trains run on time, punishing the wrong doer, rewarding the "good citizen."

I can see that some of the analogy makes sense. But it falls down, because government does have some measureable effects.

I do think there is pointless ceremony (esp at the house of commons/lords) but few people take that as worship of an almighty entity.

Some people may see political candidates as a kind of "saviour", when really they should be looking for a good administrator.

 

[Matt the Poet]

It’s perfectly possible to be an anarchist theist – Tolstoy is widely considered to have been one.

It’s a tenet of most sensible forms of anarchy that, given the right conditions, all of the organisation essential for a functioning society a) arises from the ‘bottom’ and b) stays there. It's not that nobody should be in charge of anything, it's just that there's no reason for one group to be in charge of everything.

For every anarchist who seriously considers what the right conditions might be and how to get there, there’s at least one who thinks that it will all happen by itself due to some mystical ‘natural order’ or ‘social bond’.

 

[Bikewer]

I admit relative ignorance; I know that Anarchy is not properly represented by rock or bomb-throwing black-clad protesters who have adopted the name. It seems to me that Anarchy would be more related to Libertarianism than anything else.