A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[BabylonHoruv]

Rat,
is Rational Anarchy really a 'political view' if it doesn't prescribe specific policy?

It does have a specific policy, 'pick the action that you can live with, because it is your choice... your responsibility'. However, I think its possibly a meta-political view. A perception of any political system which I think makes that system more compatible with some of the ideas around Discordian philosophy.

It does make a few political positions, though. Individuals are personally responsible for their actions... no matter what fictional entity might be pretending to run the State. Ergo, its not the US government that is condoning assassinations... but rather it is every individual involved in that decision, from the President to the spag that fires the gun.There is no shared responsibility via some anonymous entity.

In short, we all live in anarchy today.

This is my standard response to anyone who tries to convince me that anarchy is a good idea. "anarchy" in the - no rules and government - sense. What happens when we have perfect anarchy? No rules and government? The first thing, the very first thing that happens is the biggest, strongest, meanest motherfuckers impose rules and government. That's anarchy at it's finest - it's the only system currently possible.

Well for individualist anarchism, you're probably right. For socialist anarchism systems, thats no more true than it is now. Anarchy doesn't mean that there are no rules or no government, just that there is no coercion. For example, if all 50 states could choose their social system completely independantly and all citizens were free to choose which state they wanted to associate with, then that could easily be a form of socialist anarchy. If a group called Ohio says "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 5% of their income to cover medical needs for everyone in the collective" and another group called Indiana said "Anyone that would like to join our group is responsible for their own health care" and a group called Michigan said "Anyone that would like to join our group will pay 8% of their income to cover medical needs and preventative medical education for everyone in the collective".... and everyone could choose of their own Free Will which group they would associate with (if any), then we have a basic system of Anarchy.

Most anarchist systems have some kind of rules. IF someone tells you that anarchy means 'no rules', then they are using a modern colloquialism, not the term used to discuss the political systems that fall under that umbrella.

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

[Doktor Howl]

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

No, THAT doesn't mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.  What DOES mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers is the fact that we are primates and thus wired for a pack mentality.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

You are mixing arguements.  Rat was pointing out that the stated flaw in Anarchism exists in all other social systems.  The benefits of Anarchy didn't enter into it.  I would also argue that it is a lot harder to convince a group of freely associating people to get into a war of territorial aggression than it is to implement one from the top in a governed society, so an Anarchist society is not just no worse, in this situation, it is actually less bad.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, fuck it.  I suppose I won't bother with a serious answer from now on, then.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you responded with this.

Yeah, well, I posted a reasonable response (above), and he blew right past it and complained that nobody was being reasonable.

So you'll forgive me if I'm a little annoyed.

Who was?

[BabylonHoruv]

You know the old rule - "nature abhors a vacuum"? Well anarchy is (by definition as well as attempted implementation) a vacuum. More specifically it is a power vacuum. The only thing that ever happens as a direct result of a power vacuum is people being lined up for arm removal by machete. Oh, yeah and the biggest, baddest, meanest motherfucker stepping in to fill it. Usually a tribal warlord (if there's no oil in the ground) or the USA/UN "Peace Keeping Force" (if there is)

But, anarchy is defined that way only on Internet forums and in the minds of edgy freshmen college kids. Why do people keep claiming anarchy = power vacuum?

Some forms of anarchy, COULD, if implemented terribly poorly, create a power vacuum. Other forms would put the necessary social structures in place to avoid a power vacuum.... the major difference is that those social structures would be voluntary in nature, respecting the individual... rather than compulsory in nature, as it is today.

no, anarchy is defined that way in the goddamn dictionary.

Anarchy can be defined as a bowl of Froot Loops, but that will be just as wrong as any other made-up definition.

A chaotic and confusing absence of any form of political authority or government.

The state of a society being without authoritarians or a governing body.

confusion in general; disorder

none of these dictionary definitions has anything to say about "self-rule" or voluntary association.

I know we're on the warpath against pointless padantry these days and I agree with that, however that doesn't mean that you can just start assigning whatever meaning you feel like to a given word.

A couple of things, if what is the dictionary does not agree with common usage the dictionary is wrong, not common usage.  At least in the US.  Webster set those rules in place.  Also, that second definition is exactly what I have been using, The state of society without  a governing body or authoritarians.  Anarchist philosophy includes mutual voluntary association as a natural outgrowth of that precondition, and, also, in many cases, as required to reach the precondition.

[BabylonHoruv]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

Also, none of the people defending Anarchy have said what you are trying to say we are saying.

[Eater of Clowns]

That depends on your philosophy.

If you believe that the State, by its use of compulsion and coercion is morally illegitimate, then its not ideal. One could argue that if we can't trust humans, the most ideal thing would be to stick them all in cages and let them out only to work to pay for their care and feeding.

But, I doubt that most of us would agree with that.

Tucker makes an interesting comparison between that argument and one that was popular against abolitionists... In short, many slave owners/pro-slavery groups argued that the 'negros' were uneducated, unable to take care of themselves or be responsible for themselves. Slavery was 'good' because it was the best way to take care of these people. It wouldn't be safe or wise to just let these uneducated, ignorant people run free.

Abolitionists responded to that by arguing that it was the institution of slavery which kept them ignorant and uneducated. They pointed out that the above reasoning was circular.

At the time there was also the argument that organized religion was necessary because people were superstitious and NEEDED the system, that without the Church there would be no basis for morality. Yet, the Church itself is responsible for furthering the superstitions of its patrons and as many atheists argue today, a morality based on fear of hell isn't much of a morality anyway.

Those who wish to abolish slavery and those who wish to abolish organized religion, in the mind of Ben Tucker anyway, have a lot in common with those that want to abolish the State.

A couple things, Rat.  Taking the State rationale to a conclusion of caging people is making the same mistake you argue against that anarchism means ultimately raping and pillaging.

The quote from Tucker is an insult, and not even a veiled one.  Equating non-anarchists with medieval clergy and slave owners is just throwing mud around, it makes no point other than a disparaging one against the other side.  I wouldn't recommend tossing that comparison into any discussion.

He was equating the arguments used not the actions of the groups...

Oh fuck it... nevermind.

Obviously anarchy is the desire to have no rules at all and run naked through the streets screaming and hitting each other with sticks, poo and the occasional bullet. The people who created the philosophy of anarchism were obviously evil, on drugs and had no idea what they were talking about and certainly had no valid points to make.... and we can learn all of that from a dictionary, rather than reading the stuff these people wrote.

Does that fit with everyones filters now?

Of course he's not talking about the actions of the groups, but he's calling the arguments used short sighted, foolish, and flawed in that comparison.  Here we go - defending anarchism is much like fucking a pig in its ass.  Now obviously you aren't fucking a pig in its ass but now your ideas are those of a pig fucker.  How is that not an insult?

And there it is again, this insinuation that because someone doesn't agree that anarchy is plausible they're somehow narrow minded.  Rat, you can get right off that fucking high horse you apparently think you're riding.  At no point did I respond to you with any hostility before this.  Even after that bullshit comment you laid out in response to my questioning.

[LMNO]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Also, none of the people defending Anarchy have said what you are trying to say we are saying.

Rat did, when he said that Anarchy will only work if people aren't mean to each other.

My biggest issue with anarchism as a political system is that it would require people to behave in a self-responsible fashion. IE, accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions. That seems far more detrimental to the philosophy to me.

[BabylonHoruv]

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

No, THAT doesn't mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.  What DOES mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers is the fact that we are primates and thus wired for a pack mentality.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

[BabylonHoruv]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm a charismatic speaker in a militant social group.  I convince my people in our friendly whatever the fuck hearing that our only hope for survival is to attack the nearest weaker social group.  Or maybe I just tell them we don't like them and let them invent their own reasons.  What is stopping me?

It is a good question and one reason why I think that anarchism, like all political systems is flawed. However, Benjamin Tucker, among others, wrote extensively on the topic.

One interesting thing to consider... what is the difference between, You, the charismatic leader of a militant social group, and You, the charismatic President of the State?

"Our only hope of survival is to attack the nearby social group"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack Iraq"
"Our only hope of survival is to attack these States that are trying to leave the Union."
"Our only hope of survival is to take more money from those people"
"Our only hope of survival is to put people in prison without charge until the end of this war"
"Our only hope of survival is to assassinate a Motherfucker"

Many anarchist schools of thought would argue that any crazy bullshit that humans might do... is still doable under most, if not all, other systems of governance. If humans cannot be trusted, then "The State", a subgroup of humans, given power over the rest, surely could not be trusted.

Tucker's response to "anarchism will equal chaos" can be found at:http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker9.html and his discussion of anarchy and organization can be found at http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker7.html

There's also a great essay comparing State Socialism versus Socialist Anarchism: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html

Again, I'm not arguing that anarchism is best... however, there are some compelling arguments that it may be no worse that the other options.

So, if it's simply "no worse", then why go to all the trouble of changing to it?

You are mixing arguements.  Rat was pointing out that the stated flaw in Anarchism exists in all other social systems.  The benefits of Anarchy didn't enter into it.  I would also argue that it is a lot harder to convince a group of freely associating people to get into a war of territorial aggression than it is to implement one from the top in a governed society, so an Anarchist society is not just no worse, in this situation, it is actually less bad.

Well, except for a couple of things:

1.  The flaws in anarchism are more readily susceptable to complexity, thus failure will happen sooner.  In today's society, it will fail immediately.

2.  "Freely associating people" won't occur, because we are wired as pack animals and thus REQUIRE alphas.

[Doktor Howl]

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

No, THAT doesn't mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.  What DOES mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers is the fact that we are primates and thus wired for a pack mentality.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

So you're advocating balkanization?  I'd like to refer you to the history of the territory once known as Yugoslavia.

[Thurnez Isa]

That's much closer to Panarchy.  The literal translation of Anarchy however is not no rules, it is no RULERS.  I really don't think human beings are capable of existing without societal rules, and even if we were doing so doesn't strike me as a good thing.  Also, even if we were we'd still be bound by the rules of nature.  That doesn't man we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.

No, THAT doesn't mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers.  What DOES mean we are not capable of existing in a society with no rulers is the fact that we are primates and thus wired for a pack mentality.

So individualistic Anarchy doesn't work.  Socialist Anarchy is kind of defined by packs.

Socialist Anarchy... poor Glenn Beck's heart would stop ticking if he ever got wind of it

[LMNO]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

You forget: "A person is rational.  PEOPLE aren't."

[Doktor Howl]

....aaaaand we're back to the "it will only work if humans don't act like humans" bit.


You know, Cain already pointed out that any system whatsoever that is based on humans only acting either rationally or kindly is fundamentally flawed.  Do you have to keep going on about how Anarchy would be great if we had dance-offs instead of gunfights?

To refute this for the thousandth time.  If people are monsters, putting monsters in charge only makes it worse.

And if there are rules in place that try to prevent monsters from doing what they will, that is a good idea.

Not really, since it's monsters that are in charge of enforcing those rules.

From time to time, yes.  But what makes you think those monsters won't exist in an anarchic system?  And what makes you think that those monsters aren't restraining the more common, garden variety monsters?