A Discordian argument against Anarchism

[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?

[Cramulus]

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.

Have you seen the HBO show Deadwood? It takes place 1870s in Deadwood, South Dakota, before and after joning Dakota territory. So there is no law for a good portion of the show. The bartender, who controls the booze and hos, seems to be the only authority figure for much of the show. Most of the first season is about the conflicts he has with the one guy who doesn't accept that authority.


It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

[Doktor Howl]

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.

Depends.  Arizona really WAS that bad.  Worse, even, then it was made out to be.

[LMNO]

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.

Have you seen the HBO show Deadwood? It takes place 1870s in Deadwood, South Dakota, before and after joning Dakota territory. So there is no law for a good portion of the show. The bartender, who controls the booze and hos, seems to be the only authority figure for much of the show. Most of the first season is about the conflicts he has with the one guy who doesn't accept that authority.


It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

I believe I called that show Cursing, Tits, and Violence.

[Doktor Howl]

It sounded like a very exciting and extremely dangerous place to live.

Most wild West "gunfights" involved being shot in the back, shot while you were sleeping, etc.  Extremely dangerous and exciting, maybe, but not terribly pleasant.

A few people in boot hill cemetary in Tombstone are marked "Unknown", because they were shot as they got off the stagecoach, before anyone even knew who they were.  The famous Earp/McLaury vendetta wasn't a lawman/rustler battle, it was basically a gang war.  Within a year of settlement, there were no serious independent miners or cattlemen, just huge corporate mines with gigantic death tolls every year, due to horrible working conditions not necessary even in that day.

The wild West had very little to recommend it.  Still doesn't, come to think of it.

[East Coast Hustle]

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

[East Coast Hustle]

I think all this talk of Anarchism and Anarchists is really just giving too much undeserved attention to a school of thought that has no practical value whatsoever. From now on, anytime someone starts talking about Anarchy in any positive light I'm going to treat them exactly as I would if, say, they were telling me that if I'm a good juggalo, I'll go to the dark carnival when I die.

[Cramulus]

The dictionary definition of anarchy is irrelevant. Telarus already pointed out that it literally refers to people who are against the archons of athens. But it could mean "people who dance around the maypole" for all I care. We're discussing is what anarchists believe, not what they're called.

[Doktor Howl]

I think all this talk of Anarchism and Anarchists is really just giving too much undeserved attention to a school of thought that has no practical value whatsoever. From now on, anytime someone starts talking about Anarchy in any positive light I'm going to treat them exactly as I would if, say, they were telling me that if I'm a good juggalo, I'll go to the dark carnival when I die.

I sort of file it under the same heading as the mahdgjickque tards.  It doesn't actually work, but it makes the people advocating it feel better or smarter or whatever, so there's no real harm done.

[Doktor Howl]

The dictionary definition of anarchy is irrelevant. Telarus already pointed out that it literally refers to people who are against the archons of athens. But it could mean "people who dance around the maypole" for all I care. We're discussing is what anarchists believe, not what they're called.

Okay, so ask 10 anarchist what anarchy means.  You'll get 12 answers.

[LMNO]

So, anarchists really are discordians, then.

[Doktor Howl]

So, anarchists really are discordians, then.

No, they share a trait with Discordians. 

It's like saying that some dogs are black and some cats are black.  They are both black, but that doesn't mean that the cats are dogs or the dogs are cats.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

....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?

Where the fuck did I say that?

If we're gonna have useful discussions quit arguing against stuff I haven't said.

To recap, things I have said:

1. Anarchism as stated in the OP is applicable only to individualist anarchism and is not applicable to various other forms of anarchism.

2. Anarchism presumes 'Order' no more or less so than other systems. At best it argues that humans can behave in an ordered way without some State forcing them to with threats.

3. I think the various forms of Anarchism have flaws as equally troubling as other systems... which is why I am not a individualist anarchist or a socialist anarchist.

4. From a Discordian perspective, I find the model labeled "Rational Anarchism" to make pretty much any system compatible with Discordian 'philosophy'.

However, it appears obvious that some people want to say that Anarchism = No Rules everything is crazy chaos and no matter what evidence is brought to bear, those perceptions don't seem likely to change. Therefore, I see no reason to continue the discussion.

Am I missing anything?

[Doktor Howl]

2. Anarchism presumes 'Order' no more or less so than other systems. At best it argues that humans can behave in an ordered way without some State forcing them to with threats.

Some might be able to do that...But that's not how you bet.

[LMNO]

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.

That.  Right there.