Why I gave up Anarchism.
Background.
If I was to boil the years of my political positions down I’d say that when I was a social democrat aged about 14 or so,I had no well developed or considered idea about Positive Liberty ,and so I focused on Negative Liberty which seemed easier to understand.This influenced me(along with mistreatment from my peers) to get into an extreme Objectivist inspired Individualism and Egoism-What young teen doesn’t want to be told you have the right to control your life free from any others influence in rebellion against society itself.
If I was to boil the years of my political positions down I’d say that when I was a social democrat aged about 14 or so,I had no well developed or considered idea about Positive Liberty ,and so I focused on Negative Liberty which seemed easier to understand.This influenced me(along with mistreatment from my peers) to get into an extreme Objectivist inspired Individualism and Egoism-What young teen doesn’t want to be told you have the right to control your life free from any others influence in rebellion against society itself.
Down the years I encountered later, Objectivism and Libertarianism.I believed they explained why negative liberty is good and positive liberty bad.When I became a ‘Left Libertarian’, it gradually opened me up to re-examining this belief and I ultimately came to see them both as complimentary and two sides of the same coin.Infact as I understand now,the only reason we care about Negative liberty is because of how it grants us positive liberty and is thus empowering.To believe in merely negative liberty is to miss the point then.’Freedom to be poor’ is no freedom at all.No one is empowered by allowing them the ability to use their property to discriminate against you.In understanding this ,I came to accept collectivism.Both individualism and collectivism are important and when either exclusively dominates you run into problems.
I then moved away from any kind of Libertarianism to a quite traditional anarchism.Anarchism as it is and always was.Anarchism as it’s always meant.I read Emma Goldman,Proudhon,Marx,Kropotkin,Bakunin,Bookchin and Berkman to name but a few.
Many months after this casting off of libertarian residue and acceptance of anarchism as it’d always been , I came to doubt the worth of Anarchism.I came to doubt it’s ability to secure the just equal rights protecting society I want, due to positive liberty being so important and my doubt about that is incredibly strong now that I consider anarchy to be a vastly undesirable state to work for.I saw people arguing that to be anarchist you had to be opposed to cities or marriage and I was turned off by that.I was only ever in it for a just equal society not a totalizing way of thinking.I wondered if it might be too much.Too ‘out there’.
When I was an anarchist at the start of these Tory cuts, I thought we must oppose these and that we need government intervention and reforms(as the second best option) until we get to anarchy.Once the doubts set in,I dropped “until we get to anarchy” for the thought that we need reforms and to fight these cuts for their own sake.I became a democratic socialist.
Quite a path I’ve travelled: Social democratic to Objectivist to ‘Capitalist Libertarian’ to ‘Left Libertarian’ then Carson Mutualist to Anarcho-Collectivist anarchist inspired by Bakunin then back to the left with Democratic Socialism.
In a brief summary, what were my motives for giving up anarchism?
Anarchism seemed an unrealistic society to work for.I saw no obvious conceivable means of achieving it (especially without massive deal of violence).I saw anarchism as not offering practical solutions to the problems of today but instead casting it off with talk of “when we have anarchy”.That is not helping anyone.I don’t deny anarchists do a great deal of good in community organizing and the like, but when they cannot lay down policies to work with then they have nothing to add to the conversation on that.They’re talking past us who want reform.It’s there prerogative but when we’re talking about things like how to reduce global warming they have no plan we can globally put into action in the here and now.
I worried about allowing racists,fascists and the like free choice to determine community norms.I believe government despite it’s errors and evils,is not all bad and does provide some perennially good things which are huge steps forward in human society for example food licensing laws,right to roam,health and safety, laws against at will firing,road maintenance,water purification,the welfare state,government healthcare,public transport-to name but a few.Because of that I didn’t see a need to do away with the state merely improve it ,as that’s all we can do.The state is just an institution which executes the desires of those who most influence it and promotes their values.The goal is to make the state more influenced by the many not the few.
Statelessness as an impossible achievement.
It seems to me unlikely that statelessness is a possible condition of society.As I used to conceive it, a stateless society would involve a community coming together to decide on a course of action then implementing it.I favoured direct local democracy with as wide an inclusion as is humanely possible.I was told by my critics this was still a state.I have come to see they were correct.Regardless of the fact that this is more democratic,vastly less hierarchical and vastly egalitarian it is nonetheless a state!
How so?
While this democracy would allow for disagreement and aim to resolve conflict it may at times not be possible i.e. regardless of the modifications to a proposal a person or group still may not agree with it.Now in the choice of whether to built a new hospital or not, both cannot be done. Some group or individual is going to be dissatisfied and have a choice which is not there own carried out.Even within the glorious grassroots direct democracy of the Occupy movement this type of thing occurred ,as I can personally attest to.For organizations this is not so bad, any member(s) are free to leave if unhappy.But for a society,that’s just not possible and so you are forced to put up with what has been chosen. You may ask well why do we have to go with a majoritarian model.Can’t we have an unanimous one? Well in some cases but even in localized cases it can break down.On a large societal wide scale it just would not work.The two sides in a question of war could never resolve their differences.There is a large number of questions like this that would never be sorted out and decisions have to be made somehow.
So in returning to my point, someone or some group is going to have a decision forced on them that they did not directly consent or agree to except by their agreement ,acceptance and involvement in the procedures of decisionmaking(this is not meant to imply a comparison with voting in represensative democracy).This shows that the sense in which government is a monopoly on enforcement of decisionmaking cannot be avoided.If a decision affects the society in which you live,even if you disagree you cannot remove yourself from being involved in the consequences of the decided result of that decision making.
Anarcho-Capitalists have claimed the solution to this is competiting agencies of decision making yet all this would likely result in is a society of civil war ,of competiting privatized mini states It is more and more apparent to me that most of the things said about anarchy are true to some extent(though I do not deny it is often exaggerated or misrepresented or bad arguments are made.)
Anarchy is Chaos.
Anarchy is fine insofar as you only consider communities with your own modern liberal cultural preferences setting their own rules.But when you consider communities with more conservative or inhumane norms you run into problems.There could be a community of rapists,religious fanatics pimps ,paedophiles or forced marriages.Mormons and Scientologists would try to run and buy up the world.There would likely be fascist communities,absence of fair trials,lack of inclusivity,hierarchy,sexism etc.Just utter regression of society.
So far from being a promised better society, anarchy would (or at least could ) be a worse society.It could be more open to evil of all sorts.Few would want that,even the risk of that.
The state can( at least in theory) safeguard and promote modern liberal values.The state can(potentially) limit how far cluture can be made to regress.I don’t consider ‘the freedom to chose a racist society’ a real freedom.I don’t want a society where they could chose to have a widescale institutional order like that.I don’t want a society without institutional requirements that disabled people aren’t restricted by organizations from access and therefore can’t be socially excluded.I don’t want a society where it’s ever possible to exclude a person or group from a shop based on gender,race or sexual orientation.I want a society where such actions are forbidden and if discovered,punishable.
Anarchism wants a direct democracy(which is also what I want ,as far as possible).However it wants and cannot allow for, imposed limits to that(Here Rothbard was right to say that there’d have to be a uniform libertarian legal code otherwise society could be worse). I see that as chaos since rightwing and other undesirable philosophies could institute their ideas and have a repressive regressive society.There would be no protection of rights other than the community saw fit and no right to force communities to defend rights.Anarchists may well say that they’d stop such horrors or prevent them.But with no overarching set of norms to refer to it could well fall on deaf ears.The result could very well be civil war- religious fanatics vs atheists, black people vs fascists etc.
I have to be modest in saying that I don’t think every anarchist community would be horrible.Some could be amazing.There might be a great deal of fellow feeling and sharing.Some communities might be the best humanity has ever seen.But the risks ,the worrying communities, go a great length to negate that.
Democratic Socialism accomplishes the need for direct democracy while allowing and admitting that there must be legal limits on what can be chosen i.e. you cannot chose to violate human rights. Absolutist opposition to hierarchy results in allowing the bad to run riot.It allows a measure of chaos. Anarchism is anti- authority in excessive way and ends up endorsing free unlimited choice at a community level which are taken as a dogma,as absolutes which are unviolable.
Without some imposed norms or codes e.g. laws, anything goes which may allow good to flourish but also evil to fester and spread.There must be limits on choice if a choice is going to be so destructive and bad for society.Allowing free choice is a rule of thumb, a presumption but not an absolute ,not an idea which is true in all cases for all things.Freedom and choice also require responsibility ,reasonableness and compassion.
Even in a good anarchist community there would need to be people enforcing norms and punishing violaters thus violence is required even if just in an organized sense for defense against rape or murder.
Even in a good anarchist community there would need to be people enforcing norms and punishing violaters thus violence is required even if just in an organized sense for defense against rape or murder.
Non violent enforcement on a ground level would not work if the person violating the norm was persistent and ignored all attempts at debating with them or ignoring or excluding them. A violence free community could not work.While I am sympathetic to and can understand why someone might want to be a pacifist or against forcing people to obey certain norms while acting non violently ,I am not in favour of it .Without enforcing reasonable norms decided by the majority ,the community breaks down.
Lets take an example I have encountered myself. Say you have an alcohol free community, a ‘dry zone’.What would you do about someone who violates this? you can try to exclude them or criticize them but that may not work.They may persist anyway.This happened with Occupy groups.They did not use force to remove the alcohol(My preferred response) nor remove them nor forcibly(if need be) exclude them.They just used words.But the dry zone policy is just mere words without enforcement.It is just an abstract.This example applies to many things.A community without enforcement of norms is in actuality normless ,in a state of insecurity and chaos.
One of the best examples of this is governments which do not protect rights, for all they declare them to exist .It’s exactly the same.
Closing.
For any social change to be deep widespread and abiding , the majority must accept it.For racism to become generally considered abhorrent ,it took time till the majority accepted it.Other examples could be given: Gay rights,feminism etc. Anarchism needs to convince the majority that it is better.It needs to be shown practical and achievable.People are going to demand a vague picture of what it’s like and how it will be worked towards- better pictures than have been given so far- people will not give up there lives as imperfect as they are now.
For any social change to be deep widespread and abiding , the majority must accept it.For racism to become generally considered abhorrent ,it took time till the majority accepted it.Other examples could be given: Gay rights,feminism etc. Anarchism needs to convince the majority that it is better.It needs to be shown practical and achievable.People are going to demand a vague picture of what it’s like and how it will be worked towards- better pictures than have been given so far- people will not give up there lives as imperfect as they are now.
People by in large favour security over the unknown.Until anarchism manages to do this, it will never succeed.It will also have to contend with the minority of racists,fascists,nazis etc who like the idea of having a state to try to move it towards there ends and who would in some cases be violently opposed to egalitarian and anti- hierarchical societies.Until these fears and concerns have been sufficiently settled in the minds of the great wealth of people globally and nationally,anarchism is not a viable alternative to the status quo.
Notes in reply to criticism.
“Confused teen moves through Objectivism and capitalist libertarianism and various pseudo-individualist muddled bits of nonsense before becoming a mainstream social-democratic type, then becoming a supposed anarchist at some point.”If you had read what I wrote I said it was(in broad strokes)Social democrat > Objectivism> libertarianism> ‘left libertarianism’ > Anarchist> Democratic Socialist.
“middle-class perspective”Except that I grew up in a council house, and I don’t have any savings.Genius!
“assuming that an anarchic society could (or should) only function if everyone is a middle-class liberal like them ”
My point there was anarchism would only work if people believed in values anarchists do.
My point there was anarchism would only work if people believed in values anarchists do.
“Not a single critique of capitalism”
This wasn’t a piece about that.” Also, they loved reformism too much to embrace the idea of revolution.”Revolution is unrealistic. I believe in a revolution of ideas not actions.
This wasn’t a piece about that.” Also, they loved reformism too much to embrace the idea of revolution.”Revolution is unrealistic. I believe in a revolution of ideas not actions.
“Wilsonian idealist who cannot bear a society where they might not be able to dictate values.”
I expected this kind of insult…. I’m not the kind of person who things everyone should conform to me but some norms are like that.
I expected this kind of insult…. I’m not the kind of person who things everyone should conform to me but some norms are like that.
“they wouldn’t make choices we like, so we shouldn’t let them make choices.”
I’m not saying that.I’m saying there’s has to be imposed limits on the choices that can be made.
“It’s not clear to me from your article why you gave up anarchism. “
I stopped believing it was necessary or achievable. I then came to see it as undesirable if it were achievable and
“Were you an anarchist because you were a libertarian? “
I thought of myself as an anarchist when I was an ancap then when I was a ‘left libertarian’ but I then moved beyond that to a more traditional anarchism inspired by Goldman, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin,Marx,Bookchin etc taking influence from Mutualism,Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism.
I am not a libertarian now.
I am a democratic socialist( by which I mean I oppose the USSR and so called ‘actually existing socialist’ countries.)
“Rights don’t protect people “
I disagree.Protecting people is itself a right.
“Also, even if peoples’ rights cannot be secured in an anarchist society, that still does not mean that a state would be justified. “
I disagree. Such a society would be worse than now.
“the state is an inherently aggressive institution”
True to some extent though it can be justified sometimes.
“Did you give up anarchism because you gave up libertarianism?”
No. I gave up libertarianism FOR anarchism.
“what are competing privatized mini-states”?
Ancaps favour (generally) complete privatization of everything.These would be de facto states but privately funded and ran or at least state like.
“I believe government despite it’s errors and evils,is not all bad
and does provide some perennially good things which are huge steps
forward in human society for example food licensing laws,right to
roam,health and safety, laws against at will firing,road
maintenance,water purification,the welfare state,government
healthcare,public transport-to name but a few.”
“if not then how you believe these great acts of aggression are justified?”
Because the absence of them is a great danger to society.With them there can be greater wellbeing and risks of harm are reduced. They are quite vital necessities to any civilized society.
“Any response to any of what I said within the next week will be read and appreciated. Thanks.”
Thank you for your interest.I appreciate your reasonable tone despite my disagreement and I respect your willingness to engage my ideas.
I resent the slur that I am a capitalist.How about debating the argument not just personally attacking me.I am not a capitalist. I am critical of consumerism,corporations,planned obscolescence and a whole lot of capitalist values.I hate most banks…
9:03 pm
It’s not clear to me from your article why you gave up anarchism. In fact, I am not sure how it is that you were an anarchist in the first place. Were you an anarchist because you were a libertarian? You say in the article that you were a “left libertarian,” so I thought this was a possibility, but many of your statements suggest that you weren’t a libertarian (or aren’t a libertarian now). For example:
“I came to doubt [anarchy's] ability to secure the just equal rights protecting society I want….”
What are the “rights protecting society” above? Rights don’t protect people and “society” doesn’t have rights. Also, even if peoples’ rights cannot be secured in an anarchist society, that still does not mean that a state would be justified. All states still necessarily violate peoples rights so as a libertarian you would still have to be an anarchist to be consistent despite your belief that peoples’ rights couldn’t be secured well in a stateless society. So did you give up libertarianism too?
“The state is just an institution which executes the desires of those
who most influence it and promotes their values.The goal is to make the
state more influenced by the many not the few.”
This statement strongly suggests that you have given up libertarianism due to the fact that it is not compatible with libertarianism. Libertarians are opposed to aggression; the state is an inherently aggressive institution; thus, libertarians must be opposed to the state. Yet rather than want to abolish the state you seem to want to keep it and just have more people influence it. That’s not libertarian.
“Anarcho-Capitalists have claimed the solution to this is competiting
agencies of decision making yet all this would likely result in is a
society of civil war ,of competiting privatized mini states.”
Your claim of civil war is unfounded, but again, even if you were right that still does not change the fact that states are inherently unjust by libertarian standards. Did you give up anarchism because you gave up libertarianism? If so, you may have wanted to mention that in your article to make it more clear to your readers. Also, what are “competing privatized mini-states”? That sounds like a contradiction of terms to me. If they compete (in a single geographic region… not the “competition” between nation-states like the US Gov and Canadian Gov today) and are “privatized” then how are they states? The definitions that you are using for your terms makes me wonder in what sense you were an anarchist before.
Lastly, I am curious what aggressive government acts do you now support now that you are no longer an anarchist?
In your article you listed several big things:
“I believe government despite it’s errors and evils,is not all bad
and does provide some perennially good things which are huge steps
forward in human society for example food licensing laws,right to
roam,health and safety, laws against at will firing,road
maintenance,water purification,the welfare state,government
healthcare,public transport-to name but a few.”
The above statement makes me highly skeptical of the fact that you were ever an anarchist at all. For what reasons were you an anarchist? If you were an anarchist for libertarian reasons, then I am interested to hear whether you simply gave up libertarianism as well or if not then how you believe these great acts of aggression are justified?
Any response to any of what I said within the next week will be read and appreciated. Thanks.
10:47 am
“It’s not clear to me from your article why you gave up anarchism. “
I stopped believing it was necessary or achievable. I then came to see it as undesirable if it were achievable and
“Were you an anarchist because you were a libertarian? “
I thought of myself as an anarchist when I was an ancap then when I was a ‘left libertarian’ but I then moved beyond that to a more traditional anarchism inspired by Goldman, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin,Marx,Bookchin etc taking influence from Mutualism,Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Collectivism.
I am not a libertarian now.
I am a democratic socialist( by which I mean I oppose the USSR and so called ‘actually existing socialist’ countries.)
“Rights don’t protect people “
I disagree.Protecting people is itself a right.
“Also, even if peoples’ rights cannot be secured in an anarchist society, that still does not mean that a state would be justified. “
I disagree. Such a society would be worse than now.
“the state is an inherently aggressive institution”
True to some extent though it can be justified sometimes.
“Did you give up anarchism because you gave up libertarianism?”
No. I gave up libertarianism FOR anarchism.
“what are competing privatized mini-states”?
Ancaps favour (generally) complete privatization of everything.These would be de facto states but privately funded and ran or at least state like.
“I believe government despite it’s errors and evils,is not all bad
and does provide some perennially good things which are huge steps
forward in human society for example food licensing laws,right to
roam,health and safety, laws against at will firing,road
maintenance,water purification,the welfare state,government
healthcare,public transport-to name but a few.”
“if not then how you believe these great acts of aggression are justified?”
Because the absence of them is a great danger to society.With them there can be greater wellbeing and risks of harm are reduced. They are quite vital necessities to any civilized society.
“Any response to any of what I said within the next week will be read and appreciated. Thanks.”
Thank you for your interest.I appreciate your reasonable tone despite my disagreement and I respect your willingness to engage my ideas.
12:29 am
While I have no intention of abandoning anarchism right now, I do love this article on here. It became too easy to piss off conservatives and challenge conventional thinking. Now that GT is challenging anarchists I feel it’s gone to a new level. I’m glad you put this here.
1:10 pm
I agree with PJC on that point.
–Jehu
5:47 pm
“The state is just an institution which executes the desires of those who most influence it and promotes their values.The goal is to make the state more influenced by the many not the few.” … and herein lies the problem. A misconstrued view of state legitimacy. Being a libertarian of course I cite certain functions as legitimate actions of the state but simply fulfilling the “desires of those who most influence it” even *if* that wound up being the “many” (say >50% of the populace) instead of the “few” (I’m guessing he’s referring to lobbyists here and big political donors) is certainly not one of them. Simply put if you’re going to have a state, it should be there to protect one’s natural rights (primarily life, liberty, and personal property … things like “health care”, or any commodity really, are not natural rights). If that were true then if 75% of the populace wanted government-run healthcare funded though heavy taxation (i.e. legitimized theft … especially in the case on income taxes) on the remaining 25% (minus the politicians of course) then how is that a just society? “Oh, you’ve managed to earn quite a bit of money though voluntary transactions with others there so we, the state, will be taking a sizable chunk of that” … even worse would be if you mandated health care be provided completely for free (no monetary cost to any party) thus effectively *enslaving* health care providers (assuming you didn’t just have a mass exodus from active providers in the field and good luck getting people to voluntarily work for no compensation).
“I don’t want a society without institutional requirements that disabled people aren’t restricted by organizations from access and therefore can’t be socially excluded.” This sounds all well and good and is certainly not an issue if people make accommodations voluntarily, but once you *force* parties to make accommodations for others with various disabilities you’re adding to their burden on behalf of persons they may never even encounter. Something like a wheel-chair ramp is one thing and is of relatively minimal cost and effort to install, but should a seller of goods also be made to provide insulin on demand for a diabetic (form of disability) whose sugar levels are too high? Should everything at a premises be made to allow access to every nook and cranny via wheelchair (including employee areas for a sole-proprietorship where the owner is the only employee)?
Overall, I don’t know if the author really grasped anarchy as you can’t have a “fascist communities” under anarchy … it’s just a very small fascist state the size of one community. The scale doesn’t make it anarchist. As soon as someone or minority subset of a community can “legitimately” force someone to do something against their will, then it’s no longer anarchy … even in the case of the hypothetical “rapist community” if a member of that community came to another community and raped someone, I don’t see it beyond the community’s rights to exile them from that community with, say, threat of death upon return. Also, one should have the “freedom to be poor”. If someone wants to disown worldly possessions and live day-to-day by their own means, what right does someone else have to stop them? How does that harm society (especially if this person is not imposing any burdens on that society in question)?
11:09 pm
“Why is that a problem.Do you not realize how much
restricting access and mobility excludes a vast amount of people from society,
from living their lives as they want?”
I wonder if you have ever contemplated how the state’s gun to my head to implement the things you think are fair and just interferes with my ability to live the life *I* want. Somebody, after all, has to pay for these things. And it sure as hell has never been the people holding the reigns of power, or we’d call them “philanthropists” instead of “rulers”. Maybe the life *I* want to lead includes not having to fear whether or not statists who hear about the things I do in private (which hurt nobody) might lead to me being put in a cage because some well-meaning busybody thinks that force is justified to “improve” me along the path he thinks is optimal. I am actually a bit outraged that a supposed former anarchist *and* a former radian libertarian (which by the way I am not) would dare make an assertion like this without considering the absurdity of it.
10:04 am
“The thing that strikes me as odd about this article is that
you’ve gone right back to statist objections to anarchism that centuries of
anarchist thought have dissected, criticized, and largely dismissed.”
The thing that’s odd to me is anarchism has not dismissed it.It’s funny but
common sense had it pretty spot on all along.anarchism cannot explain what to
do if there’s a community of paedophiles.It has no explained how to achieve
anarchism.It has no shown how it is better than laws against at-will firing.So
that’s not very impressive.
“provided counterpoints”
This wasn’t supposed to be a he-said ,she-said post.It was me saying I think
this.
“ Instead you have made statist assertions without much in the way of
justification”
For the most part I asked questions which no one has answered and has mostly dismissed as “I don’t
want to talk about it,heard it before”.Either point me to a reply or reply
yourself.
“but I think until
you can express not just the essence of your views but *why* you hold those
views you don’t really have any views at all. “
I held those views because I believed they embodied my values.Clearly I now see
that was wrong.Anarchism would likely destroy all my and most modern peoples
favoured values.
“that is a success for anarchy.”
It’s still not anarchy on a large scale.
“I don’t measure the success of my own ideas and choices by
what the entire world, through my own limited and factually distorted
viewpoint, appears to embrace or believe. I measure it by its impact on my own
life and the lives of people in the communities I participate in. By that
measure it’s the most successful thing I’ve ever believed in. Meanwhile your
state is still killing, oppressing, caging, raping and murdering people on a
daily basis. What do you have to say to the victims of your ideas? Mine has no
victims.”
That’s a nice speech but you’re muddying the waters with mixing affirmations of
self and politics.You’ve gotta be crazy if you’re gonna go round blaming people
who believe in government for all it does.That’s absurd.
“I wonder if you have ever contemplated how the state’s gun
to my head to implement the things you think are fair and just interferes with
my ability to live the life *I* want. “
This is starting to sound somewhat selfish.
“I am actually a bit outraged that a supposed former
anarchist *and* a former radian libertarian (which by the way I am not) would
dare make an assertion like this without considering the absurdity of it.”
The point is I’m EX both of those things.You can’t just say I’ll live my live
how I want to and bugger everyone else.You just sound deeply selfish and
atomistic.Sounds like confused classical liberalism.
“How about an institution that raises funds to build
wheelchair ramps or compensates shopkeepers in exchange for widening aisles or
lowering shelves.”
I support that.
”I passed a law, that always works,
problem solved. I’ll wash my hands of it.”
You must know that’s not really how it is.Least not at the
grassroots activist level not by those who want deep abiding change.
10:55 am
Re: community of pedophiles, it’s funny you should mention that particular example, since anonymous (an essentially anarchic hacker collective, if you haven’t been keeping up) has done more to combat child pornography in the past couple years than any government institution.
From http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/atari-teenage-riot-anonymous/all/:
“anon 4: As far as anonymous and law enforcement.. Its a
very love hate relationship on both parts.. Ive helped out some of the
groups that go after people who host child porn.. One of them had an FBI
liaison. They relayed the message that what we did made us almost heros
in their eyes. Because we did what they couldn’t.”
Children are not slaves of their parents. Rape is a widely recognized crime that stems from common values shared by nearly every culture. Ergo if a community decides to promote and accept pedophilia, the children can be liberated from it; they can be equipped to act in their own self defense; or others can act in defense of them. It only takes individual action to intervene in crime, but it takes a state to protect (and be) a gang of criminals.|
“It has no shown how it is better than laws against at-will firing”
Of firearms? Are you kidding me? You realize the state hasn’t solved this problem either? You realize that a large portion of firearms related deaths are caused by the state? You want to present problems the state can’t (or won’t) solve and make them the barrier to entry for anarchy? Of course you’re going to be pessimistic. Apply the same standard to the state and get back to me on how many problems it’s actually solved rather than perpetuated (or taken credit for after grassroots action did all the hard work, as in abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights, the sexual revolution, etc etc etc. someday they’ll be taking credit for cryptography and open culture too).
Re: common sense: what common sense? Common sense says politicians are corrupt, governments are oppressive, and the only thing different between cops and robbers is choice of costume. Common sense also says “but that’s the best we can come up with and change is haaard so we’ll support it anyway”. Fuck common sense. I prefer the uncommon sense of people who are willing to take risks.
“It’s still not anarchy on a large scale.”
Anarchy on a large scale is 1/2 the working population making part or all of its living in the black market. The OECD predicts it’ll be 2/3rds by 2020. Anarchy on a large scale is the perpetual availability of various recreational and medicinal substances despite a unified global political prohibition on them. It’s the near-instant access to the entire collective cultural and informational works of humanity provided by peer to peer technology that would otherwise be restricted to a relatively privileged few. Anarchy is working, and it’s winning the fight over the long term. People are realizing that obeying is a choice, not a duty, obligation, or necessity. Anarchy is to statism as atheism is to religion. These things take time.
“You’ve gotta be crazy if you’re gonna go round blaming people
who believe in government for all it does.That’s absurd.”
Statism is a package deal. You don’t get to only support the parts of the state you like. That’s not your fault and it’s not mine; it’s the State’s. Show me the state where can choose to only allocate the taxes you pay to the parts of the state you believe in. Show me the state where you don’t have to obey the laws you vote against. Show me the uncompromising politician who only recognizes your personal values. Yes, I blame you in part for EVERYTHING done any government which you support, with your words, your votes, your encouragement, and your money. To tell me you don’t share in the blame for the bad things (but, apparently, get some credit for the good things) is as absurd as if you told me I could aid and abet members of any other crime gang without sharing responsibility for their actions. The only way you get out of blame is if you resist, protest, avoid and undermine the state with your actions (and not just your words).
“This is starting to sound somewhat selfish.”
The point I’m trying to make is that the value of one person’s life, desires, and goals is no more or less than any other person’s. Your attempts to hide the laziness of statist thought under a veil of compassion and selflessness are obnoxious but transparent.
“I support that.”
Oh? Then I’ll see you down at the market building a ramp this weekend? Or do you mean you “support” that in that you’re happy to verbally agree with the idea as long as that’s all that’s required from you (i.e. your “vote”).
“You must know that’s not really how it is.Least not at the
grassroots activist level not by those who want deep abiding change.”
Of course not. Down at the grassroots it’s anarchy. Individuals taking individual action toward things they feel passionately about without prior approval of the masses or any self-appointed authority figures. We DO things while others “support” things. I measure individuals and organizations by what they do, not what they “support”. I find states themselves and most of their supporters extremely wanting in the action department.
5:55 am
“You seem to think rights are only things that are
“granted” by society rather than things that are morally inherent by
virtue of being and conscience. “
That is correct.The idea they are anything else other than something argued
for,the idea they are ‘inherent’ in humans is absurd.
“Where does the supposed “right” to healthcare
come from”
Society collectively decides it’s necessary for wellbeing in the same way free
speech is.
“You have a right to your life, you don’t have the right to
force another (either directly or a third party) to act in a manner that will
affect your life in a positive manner .. on the other hand you do have the
right to defend your life from being negatively affected through *direct*
action against you (e.g. any form of violent physical assault).”
This is just typical libertarian denial of positive liberty.’Freedom
to be sick’ is no freedom.
“Finally, a natural right (as opposed to a legal
entitlement) cannot conflict with another’s established rights or it cannot
legitimately be considered a right as, by creating that conflict, it cannot not
apply equally to all at all moments. “
I don’t think that’s true. Free speech vs control over property.or right to security (‘life’ as you put it)
requires ‘theft’ according to you.
“someone has to be forced to provide it (violation of liberty) or someone must
be forced to pay for it other than yourself (a violation of personal property) “
Right not to be raped is protected by the police who are
paid by taxes.So this argument does not stand up.
“Additionally, in an economic sphere, they should guard
against instances of force and fraud”
Which involves massive intervention starting with definitions of those things,
labelling laws,food standards etc.
“You cannot call an act “charitable” if it is done by one party
towards a second party at a third party’s expense (either through taxation or
through regulation in the case of the state)..”
This is basically “I’m fine so never mind other people” I call bullshit on this
libertarian selfishness.
“Ergo if a community decides to promote and accept
pedophilia, the children can be liberated from it;”
Which involves violence by one group against another creating a feud.Justified
but no different from now.
“ they can be equipped to act in their own self defense”
Unrealistic.
“It has no shown how it is better than laws against
at-will firing”
“Of firearms?”
I’m talking about employment laws.
Common sense also says “but that’s the best we can come
up with and change is haaard so we’ll support it anyway”.
Because you haven’t offered a viable alternative and FYI most people find
the exclusively negative focus on liberty selfish,self centred and
misanthropic.I know I do.You sound basically like a conservative.
“Fuck common sense. I prefer the uncommon sense of people
who are willing to take risks.”
except they add to nothing.
“Anarchy on a large scale is 1/2 the working population
making part or all of its living in the black market. “
Haha so utopian.
“Anarchy on a large scale is the perpetual availability of various recreational
and medicinal substances despite a unified global political prohibition on
them.”
Disobedience doesn’t equal anarchy.I’ve heard this dumb argument a million
times.
“Anarchy is working, and it’s winning the fight over the long term. “
Where????
“Statism is a package deal.”
Haha you even used the words of the fallacy here.Package dealing fallacy.It’s
not all or nothing.
“Yes, I blame you for your share in EVERYTHING done by any government which you
support, with your words, your votes, your encouragement, and your money. “
That’s the most fucking stupid thing I’ve heard in a while.
“To tell me you don’t share in the blame for the bad things (but, apparently,
get some credit for the good things) is as absurd as if you told me I could aid
and abet members of any other crime gang without sharing responsibility for
their actions.”
haha misanalogy.
“ The only way you get out of blame is if you resist, protest, avoid and
undermine the state with your actions (and not just your words).”
You assume I don’t.
“This is starting to sound somewhat selfish.”
“The point I’m trying to make is that the value of one
person’s life, desires, and goals is no more or less than any other person’s. “
I see you saying the opposite.Negative liberty can be
fulfilled by a hermit.It’s the liberty of
an isolated individual.It’s anti-social on it’s own without positive
liberty.
“I support that.”
“Oh? Then I’ll see you down at the market building a ramp
this weekend? “
It’s not an either /or strategy.You libertarians are so
simplistic.
11:38 am
Well you’re not going to be convinced, and this is a waste of my time. Please, have fun doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Because hey, 6000+ years of human history under statism has been 6000+ years of slavery to a ruling elite, but we can probably get the exact opposite outcome from the exact same ideas, m i rite? Even accepting that utterly strange assertion, frankly it comes down to this: I won’t be forced by you, and I abhor the use of force and make it my business to resist, undermine, counteract and defend others against the use of force. Your proposals aren’t even vaguely plausible until there are no more people like me
left. See you around man.
12:27 pm
>Society collectively decides it’s necessary for wellbeing in the same way free speech is.
Then you support the right of the people to have backed Jim Crow laws. Wonderful! A racist piece of shit.
Now cry like the little bitch you are.
>This is just typical libertarian denial of positive liberty.’Freedom to be sick’ is no freedom.
My positive right to health care cannot coexist with your positive right to health care because health care is scarce. The government cannot give more to me without giving less to you. A right to health care is self-contradictory. (Unless you propose for some people to have the right and not others.)
>Right not to be raped is protected by the police who are paid by taxes.So this argument does not stand up.
How so? Are you erroneously stating that governments grant rights? Or that a constitution grants rights? Or protects them?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, that’s just too funny.
Rights are not granted: permission is. And governments cannot protect rights while at the same time violating rights. That’s like destroying a village to save it.
>This is basically “I’m fine so never mind other people” I call bullshit on this libertarian selfishness.
No, you just want to lump the poor off onto the government instead of taking responsibility.
>Because you haven’t offered a viable alternative
We don’t have to, YOU are the one suggesting that intiating force is proper. You are claiming there needs to be a state. Ergo, YOU have the onus of proof.
We do not need to disprove the unproven.
>Haha so utopian.
A utopia is an ideally perfect society, not merely a society that has never existed.
>>“Statism is a package deal.”
>Haha you even used the words of the fallacy here.
Show a middle ground between a state and no state. Show the fucking middle. Now.
Hint: you can’t. Ergo, there’s no excluded middle.
> It’s anti-social on it’s own without positive liberty.
No, you just can’t accept that nature isn’t fair and want to use unjustified violence and threats of violence to impose your idea of fairness on the rest of us.
2:00 pm
Oh I must have glossed over the package deal comment before. ROFL. You (the OP) obviously don’t understand the concept, context or application of that fallacy or you’d know why I referenced it. Please don’t babble, it embarrasses your fellow statists.
5:27 pm
This assclown was never an anarchist to begin with.
11:45 pm
… or even a libertarian I’d posit. It’d at least be tolerable if he could recognize his own logical inconsistencies instead of sidestepping and/or making hallow excuses.
9:17 am
all you trolls suffer from true believer syndrome.
“He changed his mind so like zomg! he never TRULY believed because like a true believer could never change their mind”
BULLSHIT.
I like how you insulted me rather than treat the argument.Impressive!
10:51 am
Reply was to Solidsnake, noyou. Alsosince you never directly repliedto me, what am I supposedto reply to. as far as I’m concerned, you didn’t offer one.
11:15 am
I believe the Calvinists would say you were never one of the elect.
Romans 9:14-28
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Not only that Scott, but you can never become a REAL anarchist again:
Hebrews 6:4-6
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If I had the Holy Hand Grenade I’d pitch it at you right now! HERETIC!!!!!!
1:38 am
Justen already addressed most of what I would have save one thing. You seem to think rights are only things that are “granted” by society rather than things that are morally inherent by virtue of being and conscience. My description of natural rights at least is logically consistent (as opposed to the “rights” supposedly given by the state … legal entitlements really). Where does the supposed “right” to healthcare come from, where does the state (a collection of individuals) derive that right. If it derived it from “society” or “the majority”, (both also collections of individuals) then where do they derive those “rights”?
Continuing along the assertion you make about people having a “right” to healthcare, you conflate the natural right to life (i.e. the right of the act of living not to be abruptly halted or threatened by another person) with the “right” to have another (through force) assist you in avoiding circumstances which may shorten the duration or diminish the percieved “quality” (say due to heavy illness). You have a right to your life, you don’t have the right to force another (either directly or a third party) to act in a manner that will affect your life in a positive manner .. on the other hand you do have the right to defend your life from being negatively affected through *direct* action against you (e.g. any form of violent physical assault).
Finally, a natural right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) cannot conflict with another’s established rights or it cannot legitimately be considered a right as, by creating that conflict, it cannot not apply equally to all at all moments. Exercising my right to my life doesn’t hinder you excercising the same right. The same is the case for the natural right to liberty (including the right to associate with whomever you choose to … or choose not to) and the right to ownership of any personal property you may have accumulated. The “right” to heathcare does not meet this qualification as in order for it to be provided, either someone has to be forced to provide it (violation of liberty) or someone must be forced to pay for it other than yourself (a violation of personal property) as … if it’s truly a “right” you should be able to obtain it without any economic cost to yourself.
The only legitimate purpose of a state should be to protect the individual, natural rights of its citizens against infringement of these rights from sources both foreign and domestic. Additionally, in an economic sphere, they should guard against instances of force and fraud (which, in a way, is really a violation of the individual liberty … especially in the case of force). Any deviation from that begins to infringe on individual natural rights. For example, so-called “charitable” government programs that are imposed to “take care of people” (i.e. Social Security) can only do so by forcibly taking funds from others (especially given you cannot “opt out” of paying social security taxes even if you want to officially waive any claim to receive monies from the Social Security fund). You cannot call an act “charitable” if it is done by one party towards a second party at a third party’s expense (either through taxation or through regulation in the case of the state). Actual acts of charity are *completely voluntary* (i.e. not coerced) which are performed by individuals due to a personal desire to actively better the circumstance of another person.
11:00 pm
The thing that strikes me as odd about this article is that you’ve gone right back to statist objections to anarchism that centuries of anarchist thought have dissected, criticized, and largely dismissed. I think that you failed to integrate any of the core concepts in the first place, or else you would have anticipated the responses to the statements you’ve made above and provided counterpoints to the copy pasta responses we’ve all become familiar with in debates with statists. Instead you have made statist assertions without much in the way of justification, let alone criticism of anarchist objections *to* those assertions.
For the most part I’m not interested in debating any of the points in question so I won’t elaborate. I get tired of having the same conversations over and over again and being disappointed by the inadequacy of the response. In analysis of your backstory I have to conclude that you were never an anarchist in the first place, you were an obstinate youth, perhaps looking for a reason to justify what you wanted to be true in the moment. I hesitate to pull out the “no true scottsman” fallacy, but I think until you can express not just the essence of your views but *why* you hold those views you don’t really have any views at all. You’re just repeating someone else’s.
One comment I will make: you assert that in order for anarchy to be successful the “majority”, whatever that means, has to embrace anarchist values. I think if that’s the goalpost you want to set no movement in history has ever been successful. Every time someone does what is right instead of what is legal, or barring significant ethical choice simply does what they *want* instead of what is legal, that is a success for anarchy. Hundreds of millions of people around the planet engage in anarchism every day. Like participants in fascism, capitalism, and communism, far fewer are conscious of the implications and long term consequences of that choice, but the fact remains. I live in anarchy right now, today, at this moment. I just happen to be immersed in a society that glorifies crooks, goons, and scumbags and doesn’t object if those people abuse me, rob me, or kill me as long as they’re wearing the right costume. I don’t measure the success of my own ideas and choices by what the entire world, through my own limited and factually distorted viewpoint, appears to embrace or believe. I measure it by its impact on my own life and the lives of people in the communities I participate in. By that measure it’s the most successful thing I’ve ever believed in. Meanwhile your state is still killing, oppressing, caging, raping and murdering people on a daily basis. What do you have to say to the victims of your ideas? Mine has no victims.