A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

To be clear, they volunteer to operate under a certain set of rules, and from then on are bound to those rules, or are those rules still voluntary?

Well that would depend on the group and on what was agreed to. At the most draconian, one could create a Fundamentalist Christian society, complete with "If your brother takes out your eye, take his out too." Or you could have a very liberal system "If you assault a fellow member of the collective, your participation in the collective will be annulled". Or something in between that involves mediation, social punishment (like shunning), or whatever else the group of individuals have agreed to.

Socialist anarchist systems don't eschew rules, they eschew the State that has the right to create new rules without direct consent, or a subgroup of individuals that gets to interpret/judge/implement/put themselves above the agreed to rules.

If you are part of a social collective that deals in bartering, in trade, in social responsibility (for healthcare etc) and you get shunned, how will that impact your ability to survive? In many tribal systems, shunning was pretty much a death sentence.

[Eater of Clowns]

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?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[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?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

Err... well as I have stated many times I am not advocating that Anarchism is best... or that we should change to it.

Individualist Anarchists would simply argue that the State has no right to make demands of other humans (If one man doesn't have the right to enslave another man, then 500 men under the label 'government' don't have that right either.)

Socialist Anarchists would argue that humans, all being born free and equal must have the right to select what system they want/choose to associate with, that some 300 year old contract, signed by a handful of wealthy white guys (most of whom aren't even our relatives) simply cannot be enforced on people who haven't agreed to the contract themselves.

So, in that view, its not a question of 'better', as much as they see the State as illegitimate.

[LMNO]

If you're not advocating it, and it wouldn't be much better, and since you can voluntarily leave the US if you want to, isn't this all semantics?

[Eater of Clowns]

Okay, so nothing prevents that from happening.  I attack a neighboring society, whose free will to participate in their own society is now null because I decided theirs sucked.  Either I keep doing this until I'm a dictator or other smaller societies begin banding together for protection.  Then maybe there's war.

Your most compelling argument here, and I understand you're simplifying it, is that people can't be trusted in any system.  If that's the case then a rule of law under some kind of constitution preventing such actions is ideal, isn't it?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Okay, so nothing prevents that from happening.  I attack a neighboring society, whose free will to participate in their own society is now null because I decided theirs sucked.  Either I keep doing this until I'm a dictator or other smaller societies begin banding together for protection.  Then maybe there's war.

Your most compelling argument here, and I understand you're simplifying it, is that people can't be trusted in any system.  If that's the case then a rule of law under some kind of constitution preventing such actions is ideal, isn't it?

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.

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[Cramulus]

I think you're getting too focused on the dictionary definition. Because that's clearly not what [some] anarchists actually believe.

[Doktor Howl]

Then they should find a different word.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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

I am more interested in the philosophy labeled 'Anarchism', than the modern definition of a root word used by people over the past two centuries.

Telarus provided a very good response to the question. http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24805.msg858407#msg858407

In short, it doesn't matter how the dictionary defined the noun anarchy. It matters what the political philosophers argue under that label. If you want a definition of Political Anarchism, then go do some research... many of the essays by Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and others are available online. They are pretty clear about the words they're using as defined in the sense they are using them.

IE: Don't eat the menu. The word is not the thing. etc etc etc

[Doktor Howl]

KETCHUP!  You blow up styrofoam cups!  Hovercraft!

[P3nT4gR4m]

... No more so than  democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.

FTR - I never claimed that any of the above were any less retarded than anarchy, rather my position being that a state of anarchy would inevitably result in one or other.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

... No more so than  democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.

FTR - I never claimed that any of the above were any less retarded than anarchy, rather my position being that a state of anarchy would inevitably result in one or other.

I don't know if it would, or if it wouldn't. I think most humans act in their own self interests and the fact that we haven't all killed each other may mean that we aren't all entirely horrible bastards. Humans have often worked well together without a State enforcing laws. There was lawlessness in the life of settlers and explorers who were colonizing west of the US in the 1700's and 1800's... but it wasn't the mainstay. Mostly humans tended to be helpful to one another, building settlements, towns etc.

Often they banded together to fight off the problem people. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't... But, it didn't result in some Gang ruling all of the future Ohio territory, or all of the future state of Tennessee. From what we know of the Scandinavian people, until the weather forced them to become raiders, they lived a decent life without warlords running roughshod over them.

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. I think humans can behave in a social system without some big State forcing them... but I don't know if the individuals would be willing or able to accept personal responsibility for their choices and actions.

"Sure I agreed to be part of this system and do X... but now I have *insert excuse here* and that shouldn't count against me!!! You're Mean!" seems far more prevalent to me than "Let's go off that whole group of people over there!"