A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[Reginald Ret]

I wasn't calling your a rapist... but i was telling you what I think the results would be. I have no doubt you could live in such a society, but I have little or no faith in most of humanity. Maybe cause i have a very low opinion of humanity (and that might be a bit of a understatement)

Murder, blood hatred, tribalism, all parts of being a primate. There is no sense in denying that in my opinion.

Hmmpfh.
Fair enough.

So you believe the current system is somehow capable of keeping those horrible humans under control.
And that the controlling system does less damage than those horrible humans would do uncontrolled.
And that the subgroup of those horrible humans in control of the controlling system are less horrible than the average horrible human.
I'm a bit surprised by your optimism.
Maybe you have a very low opinion of humanity and a very low opinion of humankind's ability to subvert control systems.
I agree that primates can be horrible bastards, but sadly they are also very contrary, subversive and powerhungry.


ETA: dammit, i really should soberly reread Cain's post and reply to it. but again i am pickled.
Apologies for my disrespectful attitude Cain, my free time often seems to coincide with my desire to lose myself.

[Elder Iptuous]

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

[Thurnez Isa]

So you believe the current system is somehow capable of keeping those horrible humans under control.
And that the controlling system does less damage than those horrible humans would do uncontrolled.
And that the subgroup of those horrible humans in control of the controlling system are less horrible than the average horrible human.

no
yes
no, its equal
My position is that humans as individuals are horrifying cause their natural state is one of fear, greed, and sex, so they naturally make collectives. Most people are hotwired to naturally obey (Milgram) even to the point of moral corruption. So then it comes a discussion on what amount of power you are going to give to the collective vs the individual. I'm not an idealist or even an optimist. Does one give the power of policing to the collective? What they should police? Do you give the collective the power of fighting fires? science? helping people with mental illnesses? education? What checks to power can we agree on? What is the best way to decentralize destructive power?
To me both systems are flawed, but prefer the one that at least acknowledges our dark tribal urges.

[Telarus]

Just read the OP, will scan comments next.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, the Magnificent Motherfucker Espikopos Cain explains how Taoism was subverted to Confucianism (and how that keeps happening, again and again and again in cultural narratives).

I will be greatly honored to buy you a drink if we ever have a face-to-face.

[Telarus]

"Taking the Law into your own hands" is one of the most heinous crimes in any Judicial system, but whose hands should it be in then? Someone elses? What makes them more fit than you, to take responsibility for your behaviour?  Unnaceptable is unnaceptable, and if people had to live with the direct consequences of their unnacceptable behaviour, they would soon learn to compromise. Or behave. Maybe.

I think this is the exact position that Cain is arguing against. I think.

This seems to be to be quite a good example of expecting a "natural order" to emerge from lack of a state-like social mechanism. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's probabilistic and probably non-predictable based on each unique circumstance (although I put a average chance quite, quite low in most modern population scenarios).

[P3nT4gR4m]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

So essentially, "Anarchism" as a political school of thought is completely disassociated with the root meaning of the word "anarchy"?

Why not just call it something that makes more sense?

[LMNO]

Because "Idealistic Individualism" doesn't sound as cool.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So essentially, "Anarchism" as a political school of thought is completely disassociated with the root meaning of the word "anarchy"?

Why not just call it something that makes more sense?

Anarchy can be defined as self-rule.

Self-Rule, in Individualist Anarchism means that the individual is above all law (ala gimme your sammich!)
Self-Rule in Socialist Anarchism means that the individual is free to determine for themselves what sort of law they will live under. (ala We all help each other keep our sammiches, if you want to join us.)
Self-Rule for Rational Anarchism means that the individual recognizes that they are fully self-responsible individuals, regardless of whatever pretend entity calls itself government. (I don't care if you're the government and you demand it, I am not about to go steal that persons sammich.)

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[Cramulus]

the dictionary definition of the word Anarchy is only kissing cousins with the political ideologies under the Anarchy heading



not all anarchists want to live in a world with no laws or cops. There's tons of types of anarchy, some of them seem barely related to anarcho-communism (which is what we tend to associate the word with)

I've always understood anarchy to mean a lack of hierarchy or central leadership. I've met anarchists that have no problem with whatever the government is doing as long as it doesn't bother them personally.

the favorite anarchist I've ever met is the one who insisted she was a communist, not a capitalist. I asked her how much money she tends to carry around in her wallet. Oh, she said, I only use credit cards. HAH!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

It was generally called 'libertarianism' in the early/mid 1800's and has been called anarchism since 'Libertarian' came to reference, specifically 'Free Market economics'. Anarchism, in the Oxford dictionary I have here and other dictionaries I've used in the past define it as "political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs".

If you want to discuss the etymology of the word, thats cool... but I don't think its all that germane to the discussion.

[East Coast Hustle]

the dictionary definition of the word Anarchy is only kissing cousins with the political ideologies under the Anarchy heading


There's tons of types of anarchy

so, again, why not call it something that makes more sense? It'd be like me calling my pants a skirt and then saying that though my "skirt" and the classically defined "skirt" share the same root word, they have radically different meanings. Everyone would just get confused and say shit like "no, dude, you're wearing pants".

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

It was generally called 'libertarianism' in the early/mid 1800's and has been called anarchism since 'Libertarian' came to reference, specifically 'Free Market economics'. Anarchism, in the Oxford dictionary I have here and other dictionaries I've used in the past define it as "political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs".

If you want to discuss the etymology of the word, thats cool... but I don't think its all that germane to the discussion.

I do. you are using a word that has a specific meaning to describe a political school of thought that has nothing to do with that meaning. I honestly suspect that LMNO is correct and that the only real reason for this is because being able to apply the term "anarchy" or "anarchist" to your* ideology makes it seem edgier and makes it more likely that girls who don't shave their armpits will have sex with you*.


* - general "you" referring to all "anarchists", not specific "you" applying to Ratatosk.