Ask an Anarchist thread

Hello, I thought this might be an interesting discussion. Please read through what I've written, especially the last paragraph before you post anything. Ideally I'd like to have a question and answer format, so if you have anything you'd like to ask an anarchist I'd love to give you an answer :idea:

I'm trying to avoid posting paragraphs so I'll try to keep it short. I'll start of by saying that philosophically I'm an anarchist. I recognize any form of government as inherently illegitimate because it relies on the initiation of force against peaceful individuals in order to achieve its goals. I don't believe any moral belief, for example "We should help the poor" should be enforced through violence and coercion, but rather through voluntary means.

I don't buy into any euphemisms. For example I view democracy as mob rule. Taxation as theft. Conscription as slavery, etc.

I think every "service" that the government provides can be better handled privately by market forces in competition.

I believe in principles such as self-ownership, the right to self-determination, and the principle of non-aggression (essentially it is immoral and un-preferable to initiate force against another individual unless in self defense - not to be confused with pacifism).

The reason I didn't post this into SFA is because I'm not hoping to inspire an aggressive or inflammatory debate as these things tend to go. I'd like to open this up to a question and answer format. If you have questions for me, I'd like to hear them and have an open civil discussion with you. Even if you disagree with everything I say I definitely think its worth talking about if for no reason other to satisfy someones curiosity.

 

There is a great SFA on this topic. How does the principle of non-aggression get enforced on a macro level?

 

What constitutes an initiation of force? What is an acceptable degree of retaliation to x initiation of force? What about rights, specifically, what rights do children have and why?

 

I don't think you fully understand what a euphemism is, or at least you're using it in the wrong sense here.
How is voting for my local sheriff mob rule? Where is any violence involved in coercing people to vote in a certain manner?
How is paying for the right to use and maintain public services and gaining an abundance of benefits theft?
Considering there hasn't been a draft in decades and conscription services have been under a lot of scrutinization as just being another bureaucratic mess that will be abolished soon, how is serving your country AND GETTING PAID TO DO IT, slavery?

You draw a lot of harsh comparisons. These are not euphemisms at all nor are they similar in any way shape or form. You can't simply state X is Y without backing up why you believe it is so.

 

These are some great questions guys, I'll start with this one.

Euphemism)

I understand the word perfectly, and I think a lot of words associated with government are euphemisms.

"Enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism for torture. I'll try and explain a little better.

Voting)

I'll start with voting. I'd recommend giving this a watch. I think it adequately explains the basic premise of my position.


Public Service)

It is theft because you have no choice to opt out - even if the service is inefficient, overpriced, something you don't need, etc. If you say "no I don't want that" the answer is "too bad, give me your money."

Any other "service" that behaved that way and I bet people would be outraged.

Any of these "services" could be handled privately. If its inefficient, they lose money. If its overpriced, they lose money. Of course completely contrary to how government services work, if it is either of those things they just throw more money at it. MY MONEY.

Conscription)


Do I really need to explain what slavery is?

Being forced to SERVE anyone against your will, for pay or otherwise is slavery.


And finally I'll end by saying you're probably grateful that I didn't post a 600 page essay on a rational proof of secular ethics. It is impossible to explain in perfect detail every single point that I bring up. I just hope it'll inspire people to think critically about things.

 

Good luck with this. I have noticed (and so have you I bet ) that you just can't fix stupid. I mean you can try but I promise that no matter how good arguments you make the stupid will not change their mind. But still good luck

 

I actually was introduced through voluntaryism through a thread on a rsps of all places, and now years later I'm somewhat of an activist. If a single person thinks "Yeah, I could see how taxation could be considered theft" I'll be satisfied. Thanks for the kind words though!

 

What I ment is that, a smart person will get the meaning of your message half sentence and you would not have to link him youtube videos etc. Just read the comments on the youtube video that you linked above. The amount of stupid in the comment section is just too damn high and nothing will change that. If it did then we would be living in a pefect world some time ago. I'd personally aim to unite like minded people instead of trying to convert the stupid, because that will not work. Get enough smart people together and it might take us somewhere. Just don't spend too much of your energy trying to convice idiots

 

Yes there is! And Richard does a much better job than I do, but that thread gets locked periodically and I can't guide the discussion as much so I decided to start my own thread.

The non-aggression principle is just a principle. I bring it up because almost universally everyone agrees initiating force against a peaceful individual is wrong, yet people turn a blind eye when the state does it. People agree theft is immoral, but when a third party carries it out it becomes okay. Etc.

I don't think it is something that needs to be necessarily "enforced," or expect that everyone will have the same value. Most agree that non-violence is preferable, and will concede that the state is the largest most effective aggressor ever in the history of mankind. A rational person making that acknowledgement might begin to educate themselves further and consider alternatives to the state monopoly on the initiation of force. I think the alternatives are compelling. Both far more practical and ethical, which is why I've began to strongly advocate for a stateless society.

I hope that answers your question!

 

But people don't agree that theft is immoral. Many people who steal things believe that they are entitled to the things that they take. How would you create a stateless society? That is the ultimate form of communism and we know how well that has turned out.

 

Has it ever been successful?

 

I don't promote communism, quite the opposite. I encourage free trade in a competing market and I think that's how the "services" that the government provides will be taken care of.

The people who think they are entitled to other peoples things are successfully doing so through the state and the democratic system better than they could on their own. When government gets involved ethics get skewed. When you defend yourself or others from a thief generally that's accepted and applauded. When other people vote to rob you through the state and you defend yourself its treason and they'll murder you.

I don't expect to create a stateless society overnight, or maybe not even in my lifetime. A truly free society cannot exist when we have been so thoroughly propagandized as to define “freedom” in terms of government-granted privilege rather than as a universal moral principle. But I think encouraging philosophy and self-knowledge is incredibly important in bringing about any kind of major change.

 

Where do you live?

 

A truly free society cannot exist until we enter a post-scarcity phase in commerce because then that frees means of production from the system. If you don't have to 'own' means of production you have no struggle over means of production and therefore no classes. A private market is propped up by the state and therefore a private market would have to be removed from the equation as well, because commerce is an immensely complex beast when you add in globalization of commerce. For those few reasons there could never truly be a free market, that is idealist nonsense. And as I've argued before abolishing a greater state just means establishing numerous smaller states, in the form of local government or basic clan hierarchies. Which opens the doors for even more corruption and coercion by transferring the power from a checked system to an unchecked highly unstable system. You end up with things like the tribal wars of Afghanistan where you have extensive localized tribal wars. When one tribal warlord is feeling a little pissy or insignificant he'll just launch a raid on his neighbor.

I am pro- 'corrupt state' abolition, but your suggestion for means do no match the ends. I like the Noam Chomsky theory on anarchism, and prefer the syndicalist notions. Production means are owned by the workers as a body, similar to share holders.

 

There is no question here, so I'm almost inclined not to answer.

There is no such thing as post scarcity, resources are inherently scarce. You’re basically speaking jibberish and concluding that there could never be a free market so I’m not going to take a lot of time trying to dissect that.

The governments “checks” have failed miserably, horrible atrocities are committed in the name of government every day and it’ll continue to grow until there is a revolution or collapse.

It’s highly unlikely that private businesses would go to war over a disagreement, that would be incredibly costly and inefficient. A much more likely scenario is submitting to a mutually agreed upon arbitration firm or individual in case of conflict. Any business with a psychopathic enough owner and employees to do that would dissolve to nothing incredibly quickly. What you're describing has happened WAY more often with government, which isn't accountable to market ostracism as they can compel people to give them unlimited funds.

edit: Malakadang, I'm getting to you. You have a kind of involved question.

 

You're kinda just avoiding SuF's question. How would you reconcile Anarchism with the clear injustice of, for instance, the most powerful (have the most influence, most resources, etc.) individuals forming a gang that captures and slaughters (for example) 100,000 people? This is a perfectly possible state of events.
Basically: How do you respond to the point that the vast capacity for injustice under Anarchism is less desirable than the minimal, controlled injustices of a political state?

 

I'm not avoiding his question. He asks how the non-aggression principle would be enforced, and I respond by saying it wouldn't necessarily be enforced in the way that he's thinking.

Anyway, I appreciate your question and I’ll try to briefly answer.
The first scenario that you’re describing is what happens under government. A group of the most influential people with the most resources form a gang that captures, slaughters, and steal from MILLIONS of people. This is seen as legitimate because of a fundamental belief that following authority is virtuous and democracy is freedom. In comparison, in a stateless society if someone were to perform such horrendous acts as you’re describing they’d be violently relisted as thieves and murders. Or at the very least people wouldn’t hold the belief that they are the “good guys” and recognize their actions as extortion.

But people refuse to see their own government in that way.
I don’t think that the injustice by the state is minimal or controlled. Many of the things done under the guise of authority are unspeakable, with “checks and balances” in place. Without a large central government it’d be easier to resist murderous psychopaths.

 

I think its more that most people accept the general rule that theft is immoral, but believe that there are exceptions to this general rule. Government being a clear exception, but you have other classics such as stealing when poor, or to save your dieing wife etc etc. With that in mind, it seems nonsensical to claim that the general rule is that theft is acceptable, or not immoral, and the exceptions are when it is unacceptable. Furthermore, that necessarily allocates the burden, so If you accept the general rule that theft is immoral, you'd have to give some reason as to why government is an exception.

 

You're missing the intuitive point, in my opinion. I'll frame it this way:

Under an Anarchist system anything CAN go (certainly it's likely that some things will not fly with the general public, but there is still the potential for literally anything to happen). Hence, a gang of powerful thugs can get together and form what is (for all intensive purposes) their own little government comprised of their own particular demands. If they have enough power they can do this. It doesn't matter if they're branded as immoral thieves - whoever possesses the most power in an anarchist society calls the shots. The majority (might) generally have the most power, but this is not a necessity by any means.

So what is there to safeguard people from the most abominable forms of subjugation, slavery, genocide, depravity, etc? - their only safeguard is an eternal struggle for power, and a hope that whatever force possesses the most power is benevolent.

Now, of course there will be examples of anarchist societies that work perfectly well and people get along amicably and peacefully - but the fact is that what I just described is always a POSSIBILITY.

Conversely under a democratic system, certainly we suffer some injustices, coercion, etc. but these are much more limited in severity than the potential in the anarchist system. We have a constitution, constantly changing government officials, rights of people, etc. - all these things which are certainly evils in themselves, but the term necessary evil here gains its relevance because these functions form a barricade against all the GREATER possibility for evil regimes and immoral actions in the world (that I described up there).
Hence, I would throw my lot in with the democratic system, as I think most would.

In a sentence: You are assuming: A) that the peacefulness of an anarchist system is guaranteed, B) that a worse government system than a democracy won't emerge - there is nothing to ensure this.


How do you respond?

 

These things can and do happen under our current system of government. Subjugation, slavery, genocide, depravity already happen in the name of government. No safeguards on a piece of paper can change this reality.

Under government these things are not successfully limited. The constitution can simply be ignored. New officials don't give us more freedom, but instead make things worse. The right guy in office isn't going to fix things when the system is fundamentally unpractical and unethical. Yes, of course there is always a potential that evil people could come to power. But right now there ARE evil people in power. People that do steal and murder and commit atrocities. Everything that you're concerned about happening is already happening on a global level, and being enabled by large central governments.


In a free market environment it is much harder to accomplish what you’re worrying about. You can’t print money out of thin air to fight an offensive war. In a free market you actually have to provide a service that people find valuable and worthy of contributing to financially. Currently the government has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and if you resist you will be killed. They have absolutely unlimited funds at their disposal, etc.
But let me respond to your specific questions.


A) A) No, I don’t believe that. But I believe violence is a guarantee through government.
B) B)I’m not saying abolish the government completely this second and wait for people to struggle to power. I’m saying that there are better alternatives to government. Infrastructure can be better handled privately. Arbitration can be better handled privately. Charity can be better handled privately, etc. If people can admit that taxation is theft, then maybe we could look to limit taxation and so on. I'm not actually set making people believe the exact same things as me, but rather to challenge their belief system that they've been raised under. To think critically. I think its an important step in self-knowledge.

Once I accepted that the government relies on the initiation of force against people individuals I could no longer lend it my name. I want to live in a society where theft isn’t okay when a third party does it. Where slavery isn’t okay when a third party does it. And where people no longer accept the lies that “authority is freedom” and the government is “protecting us.”