QUESTION: What is your poltical affiliation?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

So, it's a collection of monkeys, all in their own trees?  I know some huge fucking gorillas that would beg to differ.

[AFK]

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Freedom doesn't mean you make good choices, just that you make your own choices... There are lots of criminals that consider themselves Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Politicians.

Guy,

Do not confuse Libertarian with Rational Anarchism. What you describe is the Libertarian view.... Rational Anarchism applies to the individual. If society wants rules/taxes/public police they can have them... its more about how you allow the decisions by others to influence your own decisions.

Ahh, but when a Rational Anarchist decides to live in a society, haven't they just shot themselves in the foot? 

Only if they hand off responsibility for their decisions to that society. Allow me to let Prof La Paz clarify, cause he says it better than I can:

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.  But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."

So like I said, rationalizing bad behavior.  The detriment to society claims he isn't a detriment to society because he doesn't recognize society.  It's like a philosophical "Easy Button^tm"

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals.

So, it's a collection of monkeys, all in their own trees?  I know some huge fucking gorillas that would beg to differ.
[/quote]

But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

So for example, the rational anarchist would say that a CIA agent who tortured a human being is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACT OF TORTURE. The president that ordered it is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SIGNING THAT ORDER. The guy that pushes the button one day and unleashes hell on earth, is SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PUSHING THAT BUTTON. No one gets to escape because they are following orders or are part of a government or the person dumping toxins into the lake... is responsible not a Limited Liability Corporation that he worked for.

So maybe a gorilla would come over and beat my monkey ass for disagreeing with his view of government. He's still guilty, personally for such behavior... no matter what kind of badge, ID, stripes or titles some other monkeys gave him.

So like I said, rationalizing bad behavior.  The detriment to society claims he isn't a detriment to society because he doesn't recognize society.  It's like a philosophical "Easy Button^tm"

Ummm, no.

Let's use your example of selling drugs to kids.

A person may sell drugs to kids, then when he gets caught he says "I was brought up in hard times, and I was stuck in the inner city and my mom didn't love me..."

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

Yeah, but they can make THEIR delusions YOUR reality.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But the "huge fucking gorillas" would simply be deluded, because they also are just monkeys.

Yeah, but they can make THEIR delusions YOUR reality.

Yes, but they can do that for anyone... no matter what the person might believe. So that doesn't seem to be an issue of Rational Anarchism as much as an issue of very large monkeys.

[Shai Hulud]

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

What's rational about this?  Those CIA agents are getting a pass, nobody is sending them to Leavenworth.  You say on the one hand that rational anarchism is a personal philosophy, but you're trying to have it both ways.

Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.  But it's something else altogether to say that because the government approved torture they've done something unlawful.  Immoral does not equal unlawful.  The government makes the laws, and they can and do cherry pick the laws and the consequences.  So are you taking that extra step to saying what the law should be (ie making rational anarchism into a political philosophy) or is it a personal philosophy without political or legal ramifications (ie the position you retreat to when somebody checkmates you in debate).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The rational anarchist says "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action. Have fun in Leavenworth" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

What's rational about this?  Those CIA agents are getting a pass, nobody is sending them to Leavenworth.  You say on the one hand that rational anarchism is a personal philosophy, but you're trying to have it both ways.

Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.  But it's something else altogether to say that because the government approved torture they've done something unlawful.  Immoral does not equal unlawful.  The government makes the laws, and they can and do cherry pick the laws and the consequences.  So are you taking that extra step to saying what the law should be (ie making rational anarchism into a political philosophy) or is it a personal philosophy without political or legal ramifications (ie the position you retreat to when somebody checkmates you in debate).

Good catch, sorry if I wasn't very clear there.

Let me first restate that more clearly "You sold drugs to kids, you are solely responsible for your choice and action" and he would say the same to CIA agents that tortured someone.

<i>Someone who is immoral is immoral whether they are the proletariat or the president, I get that and I can't disagree with it.</i>

Yes, that is the first step, the second step is to see the government, or corporation or K Street Firm or Military group, or Military Contractor group ALL being individuals, individually responsible for ALL of their actions.

If Bob the Blackwater contractor shoots someone, HE is responsible for shooting that person. If Joe in the Marines shoots someone, HE is responsible for shooting that person. If a CEO approves a bad investment, HE is personally responsible for the results. Sure our current system of government may not consider them personally responsible, but that is the big problem with most social structures... the group gets confused and doesn't see 'group' as individual+individual+individual.... etc.

If there were lots of Rational Anarchists, then the philosophy might influence law, since all humans tend to vote in line with their philosophy. However, the philosophy itself doesn't have as its goal the overthrow of government.

[BabylonHoruv]

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

"Gimme your sammich."

or under the current system:

*ZAP with Taser*

"*We're taking your sammich as material evidence... but we're not charging you with anything. If we determine your sammich is not a threat we will return it to you. The process should take less than a year.

Oh? What was that?

Well, it not our problem if the sammich will be rotten by then, Citizen."

People suck, especially when they have authority.
But also especially when there's none.

Authority gives people license to do whatever they want as long as they don't piss off, or upset the balance of authority.

And the same goes for lack of authority.

Either way, the nature of the limits, socially imposed or otherwise, is the only thing keeping people from eating each other in the streets. That, and electricity.

I just don't see how Anarchy is supposed to solve the Asshole Factor.

It's not,  you can't solve the asshole factor.

What anarchy does is keep from exacerbating it by giving some assholes power over the rest of the assholes.

[Requia ☣]

No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

[BabylonHoruv]

Of course you can... as we discussed last time... Rational Anarchism is a personal philosophy more than a political one. I like Fire, Police and Public Roads too. The question is how you see the relationship between you, the government and the other spags that live here.
[...]
Rational Anarchy says NOTHING about police or roads. In fact, by definition IF the people want police and roads, the Rational anarchist has nothing to say on the issue... they're free to submit themselves to a police force or to pay for public roads if that is what they want to do.

The difference between government and your rational anarchism is all in the names.  Replace police with private security force, replace government maintained road with tolls roads, replace public fire departments with private fire departments.  I don't think an anarchic society would look very different from a governed society, because people would instantly replace the illusions of government that they need.

The thing you're missing, Dr. RB, is that the "rational anarchism" you're describing isn't really any different than what's going on right now.  You're free to submit yourself to the police as you like, and if you don't they're going to come down on you unless you're clever enough to get away with it.  How would a privately run police force be different?  If anything it would be worse, since it would be little more than a gang of thugs with no illusory government telling them they have to respect fictional rights.

I like Heinlein too, he was a helluva good science fiction writer, but he was way to pie-eyed and cantankerous to have practical politics for the present generation.  He's probably right though that pseudo laissez faire capitalism is the only sort of economy that can function in an interplanetary society, but that's so far in the distant future that it shouldn't matter to us in the here and now.

Now, this "rational anarchism" ... mostly has to do with laissez faire capitalism and smoking pot.

Actually, you make a pretty compelling argument for rational anarchism right there.

Honestly, to me, it reads like a way to legitimize "bad" behavior, to put it crudely. 
I imagine there are lots of drug dealers in this country who fancy themselves "Rational Anarchists" 
It's okay to push drugs on kids even if the government says it isn't okay. 

Yeah, they're called "the pharmaceutical industry."

That's not Anarchism, that's Libertarianism.

[BabylonHoruv]

No it doesn't, you need power to keep the assholes from seizing power.  Anarchy only lasts for the 5 seconds it takes the biggest asshole in the area to convince a couple dozen people to be his new army.

Also, I have decided on a new political affiliation.  I am now an assholist.  I recognize that no matter what happens, an asshole will be in charge, and am just concerned with getting an asshole thats on my side.

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

You could see that as the Communists being the biggest assholes if you really wanna, but it wasn't a quick thing.

[Shai Hulud]

That's not Anarchism, that's Libertarianism.

Wrong.  There are two types of anarchism, or rather two schools of predictions as to how an anarchic society will unfold.  One is anarcho-syndicalsm, also called "anarcho-communism," "left anarchism" or simply "anarchism." The other is anarcho-capitalism, also called "right anarchism" or "libertariansm."  QED

[Shai Hulud]

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

[Salty]

What did they do in Spain and Ukraine? When or how was this anarchy that actually worked?

The error most people make in thinking about anarchism is assuming that it simply means a complete lack of order, which is impossible. What Anarchism means is that the power to make decisions is in the hands of the people, there is no higher authority.  it is a system which requires a much more involved and empowered populous to maintain than any other, but that doesn;t mean it isn't worth it.

That right there is what terrifies me.
People. Because they're kind of awful to one another, especially when teacher's gone.

What kind of order do people use without hierarchy?

there's quite a few ways to organize without hierarchy.  And yeah, people are quite often awful to one another, the problem is, if one person is in charge, they automatically get license to be awful.  governing doesn't work precisely because people are shits, you can't trust any of them to run things.

What are those ways?

I don't see how anarchy would stop people from being shits, but I do see how those shits would act if there weren't any police officers around. Some of them would beat the living fuck out of people like me without a second thought, any chance they could get, and they would get to do it as often as they like because without The Man[tm], there would be no repercussions.

What kind of system  would anarchy use to prevent that kind of behavior?

[BabylonHoruv]

Lasted in Spain and the Ukraine until the Communists conquered them by force.

Will anarchists ever shut up about Spain?

Not until someone else does it more successfully.