Pretty much agree with everything here, but I do not consider myself an anarchist (perhaps I would say libertarian/classical liberal). This 'backed by threats of force' thing sounds very dramatic, and so easy to take a position against in the abstract - but I think it is misleading. If everyone has hit Maslow's peak of the pyramid, and effectively reached a state of transcendent self-realisation, then sure, forceful intervention against transgressors becomes mute, and pure anarchy will be simply a description of how things naturally are in social relationships. BUT... - right? As long as we're not there, force can be legitimately exercised in protection of natural rights and justice. How such force is legitimately exercised is, I would say, a matter of free agreement in each community - yes, our current political communities are far too large and centralised, and hence anti-democratic, and a radical devolution of power is inevitable if civilisation is to progress, and not collapse. Anarchism is surely, practically-speaking, only a reality in a society that wouldn't even need to talk about it, and so wearing it as a political posture/badge here, now, in this... - seems to me to be begging unnecessary questions, distracting from excellent questions (ie how do we best organise legitimate exercise of force), and undermining the credibility of good ideas that you clearly possess. Db
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I respect your position, but let me ask you a question: in your day-to-day life, how many decisions are made under coercion and how many are made via voluntary, mutually beneficial market forces? Government doesn't tell you where you'll eat lunch, where you'll buy gas, what clothes you'll buy, who you will date, etc, etc. Anarchy is the normal state of existence.
The opposition to that equilibrium is what stands out so much to me. Distorted markets, revolving door politics, regulatory capture, victimless "crimes," modern slavery / work camps that is the prison industrial complex... the list goes on and on. Organizations like Detroit Threat Management give us a model for what we could do through voluntary, non-monopoly means.
If you believe no human being has a justified right to rule over another human being who is not aggressing against anyone else then you have a "no rulers" worldview. It would be accurate to say you are an anarchist.
hehe - right back at you, but with an added spin. Classical liberalism, certainly in my reckoning, gives you the same result. There is no inherent ruler required for this, simply the fundamental building blocks of rights/duties mutuality implicit in all public interaction. I argue that anarchism doesn't spell this out, it remains implicit, and once it is spelled out - you find out that you're a classical liberal in a different coloured vest who hasn't done the work yet.
Your hitlist - distorted markets, revolving door politics, regulatory capture, victimless crimes, slavery - all variations on transgressions against rights/duties and natural law principles. I believe this is inevitable when the naturally functional political population limit is exceeded - regardless of what you label your system. (You may be familiar with the concept of 'Koinonia'). So let's say, somewhat arbitrarily, any social grouping of over 100,000 members inevitably loses 'equilibrium' because individual members can no longer fully participate without having their legitimate voice in choice making diluted. The number may be far lower - or maybe with some organisation higher.
So, from my perspective, the difference between us here is one of labels - but my label, classical liberalism, has centuries of development, practical as well as theoretical, and is intuitively accessible to hundreds of millions if not billions alive, right now. A 'bill of rights/obligations' makes sense to billions - it spells out strict parameters for where social obligation and mutuality operates centred from the sovereign individual, hence no rulers. Now if formulations of anarchism have this too- great - but if so, why would we need to call it anarchism, the theory is already here and been practically developed? We can continually refresh and consent and revise our rights/obligations as evolution, personal and social, require. You say anarchy is the normal state of existence - fine - and now you have to go through explaining to everyone why this is. I say freedom is the normal state of existence - and looking at what you wrote, that is precisely what you meant, you appear to agree with me. Classical Liberalism covers it - anarchism just begs questions and confuses conversations with those who have no interest in learning political theory, but would benefit from a quick grasp of a system that seems to benefit all. Db
Ah, great discussion!
The reason I would prefer explicitly using the label anarchy or voluntaryism over classical liberalism (which I'm also a big fan of, as you can probably tell) is that from my understanding classical liberalism leads to minarchy. It's like asking how much cancer would you like to leave in the body. When the option for any "ruler" is still on the table, then we eventually get distortions of power. The United States started as an experiment in what many might call minarchy or classical liberalism. As a constitutional republic, it either was powerless to prevent the largest military empire the world has ever known or it directly led to its existence. For that reason, looking at history, I want to use different labels and try different mechanisms for social organization while being very clear about the base rules: no rulers.
Yes, we will have rules. Yes, we will have structure. It will be hyper local and voluntary. As you say, in large groups, things break down unless we rely on simple rules to build emergent properties which work at scale. To me, that's what the blockchain enables.
That said, I fully appreciate and respect your criticism that anarchy is simply classical liberalism without doing the hard work beforehand. I'd instead say it relies more on order out of chaos principles we see in nature instead of trying to prematurely optimize or build structure which can end up hindering a dynamic, chaotic system.
Also, on a basic level, if classical liberalism allows for military rulers or for people with a monopoly on the initiation of force within a geographic region, then it breaks down for me logically because I don't think any individual has that right and I don't know how any individual could logically create a process to delegate a right they don't have.
nicely put. Ah, this is good, we have a solid point of disagreement here among the congruence, and I hadn't thought it through before so I have an opportunity to maybe learn something important. Here's the rub: I don't believe in setting out political theories that define what arrangements individual sovereign beings can or cannot put in place in a given context, as long as what they put in place sticks to the founding principles that wholed (deliberate) the edifice together. It is interesting - you seem to be limiting sovereign freedom to agree to set up monopoly on the inititation of force in a given context - in the name of preserving freedom. It is not individuals that give that right, contrary to your fear - like all legitimate social arrangements, that decision is a product of the decision making process of sovereign right holders.
If you hold, from the outset, that sovereign right holders cannot decide to do this, how can sovereign right holders agree to use force to enforce rights and obligations? Where is law and order? Your policemen have a monopoly on the use of force delegated in a specific context when they tackle violent crime. How is this different for military rule in a specific context? Cake and eat it comes to mind. The beauty of rights/duties theories is that they are crucially deontological - they lay down principle prior to all context, and have nothing, whatsoever, to say about contexts that emerge later - that is down to evolution/reassertion/revision, which has its proper place.
This is why the Bush era onwards dilution of rights because of national emergency (right!) is illegal and illegitimate. Rights and obligations kick in, powerfully, when it is hard to have them - not when it is easy - that is the difference between authoritarian states (which US post-Bush certainly is - likely much earlier) and genuinely Liberal ones. Yes, sovereign right holders have the right to delegate force monopolies in specific contexts- and they equally have the right to then withdraw consent when the context changes. That is exactly why the Deep State is constantly working behind the scenes to maintain international disorder (context), to stop the legitimate right holders of the planet from withdrawing their consent to their monopoly of force. Their behaviour is illegal, they should properly be dismantled and arrested. This is a practical law application failure (Koinonia!), not a failure of theory.
Your position, if I read it correctly, is consequentialist - and that means that fundamentally you cannot build it on rights/duties theory, and we cannot have rights. Yet, I think you want them as an anarchist, or you're screwed. So which is it - can we right holders delegate context specific force and then withdraw it when context changes - or must our freedom to protect our basic sovereignty be sacrificed on the alter of your consequentialist fears? That's why I think anarchism hasn't thought this through, and you sound just like a Classical Liberal to me... Drum roll....
I don't think "rights" are a "truth" just like many big "T" Truths people like to believe exist. I think it all comes about by social consensus (which is again why I'm such a fan of blockchain technologies which are designed to achieve consensus).
More on that here: What If There Is No Big "T" Truth?
You mentioned "monopoly" a few times in your comment.
Why?
I don't agree. Why does it have to be a monopoly and not a group of competing service providers, all striving to best meet the best interpretation of the social consensus?
I could go on, but maybe this video will best explain what I'd prefer to see instead of monopolies.
To answer your question:
YES! But not to a monopoly maintained purely through funds stolen form individuals. I much prefer regulation that actually works such as the emergent property of order out of chaos due to simple rules (Non Aggression Principle, self-ownership, Philosophy of Liberty, etc) which evolve through competition in the marketplace.
I'm not familiar with Koinonia, but if your solution involves belief in a deity, we may already miss each other there as I gave up eternity.
Also, please, don't call them "your policemen." To me, they are violent gang members. Thug enforcers of the state. Detroit Threat Management is a much better solution, IMO.
Red herrings and misunderstanding here: I didn’t claim ‘rights’ as a ‘truth’ – I don’t need to. I claim ‘rights’ as the foundational building block of a viable political theory that achieves what we want – personal freedom-(or yours-equilibrium) among sovereign, interdependent beings. This Truth as absolute argument is a total red herring. Think about it – I point out, clearly, that rights can evolve and be revised. Equally – this argument from you is functionally self-contradictory, again red herring, it gets us nowhere, e.g., My Big T truth is that there is no Big T truth. Wordplay and an unnecessary distraction.
You claim I keep using the term ‘monopoly’ as though this had nothing to do with your argument. I refer you back to your own words – quote “if classical liberalism allows for military rulers or for people with a monopoly on the initiation of force… … then it breaks down for me logically…” So, just responding to you in your own terms, this is right at the heart of your issue here - and clarifying my disagreement with your conclusions – go back and check.
Okay, let’s cut through this ‘…But not to a monopoly maintained purely through funds stolen from individuals. I much prefer regulation that actually works such as the emergent property of order out of chaos..’ etc, etc. Okay, again you are basically spelling out that you want to establish a functioning political system – fine – your (T)truths are ‘non-aggression principle, self-ownership, philosophy of liberty… which evolve through competition… etc, etc . So tell me – how do any of these ‘truths’ you are touting here contradict Classical Liberalism? Isn’t that exactly what I’ve been saying to you since the very outset? The moment you codify these (T) truths formally, you go right into rights/duties theory. You’re just dodging the work – rather – you’ve misdiagnosed the problem and are making a lot of unnecessary work for yourself, and that work has, delightfully – let’s celebrate this - already been done.
Hehehe – Koinonia isn’t a deity. Check it out. It is partly as I described, it comes from Classical Greek thought – there is a limit to how many members of a properly functioning political society we can have. The moment we cross that threshold – which is quantitative and qualitative – function breaks down, and even the best of founding principles (i.e. Classical Liberalism) will break down with it. FYI – I’m not a believer in anything, I’m a provisional knower, open to new data. You gave up eternity – that sounds like something lost, and like belief turned into its antithesis, disbelief. Two sides of the same trap. Speculation – is there a displacement here, your current belief in anarchism, a surrogate ‘eternity’?
Again – ‘don’t call them ‘your policemen’ … they are a violent gang…. Quite. My point is very simple – when social function breaks down, what should be legally appointed keepers of the peace for right-holders easily morph into ‘violent gang members’. As I pointed out to you last time, this is an issue of proper application of existing law – in this instance, they are only policemen in name (so not what I was writing about, you misrepresent me here) but are, as you rightly say, criminals. You appear to be dodging this relevant distinction for emotional effect rather than addressing the actual point.
My problem here is that you appear to be misdiagnosing the illness. You believe the ailment is the political theory, and that your replacement theory, anarchism, is the cure. I am pointing out that anarchism is just Classical Liberalism that simply hasn’t fleshed out its assumptions, and so at best it is a pure distraction when there are far better things to place our attention on. You have not, anywhere here, addressed this; you have just restated your opposition in scrambled format without addressing my laid-out objections.
Our societies are vastly over-centralised, with a tiny ruling oligarchy and masses of mind-numbed slaves – what we need is a dramatic devolution of political power to allow proper, responsive, sovereign-right/duty holder citizenship. We can make a start on this by being vocal supporters of Classical Liberalism, and arresting the criminal oligarchy who are clinging to power through illegal psychological and physical thuggery. In this context, calls to anarchism strike me as pure naivety, plays right into their hands, and does nothing for us. Classical Liberalism is one of the finest creations of the human species, ever – and it requires precisely this devolution of power (Koinonia) in order to function. You are evidently judging the so-called liberalism in its authoritarian disguise that is prevalent throughout the immature West as exemplifying Classical Liberalism. It does not – it dresses itself up like it to borrow credibility, but this pink-lipsticked pig is a criminal, oligarchy-driven sham. In a world overflowing with semi-educated authoritarian-minded children, the maturity of real Liberalism is constantly misunderstood and misapplied – and then everyone blames and dismisses Liberalism, or sometimes attempts to reformulate it in ill-considered terms. This is a knee-jerk; yours, thus far, is a fine example of the more highly refined versions of this reflex.
I’m happy to continue thrashing this out with you if you wish, but this last offering from you read far more like emotional attachment to pet beliefs than a serious attempt to address what I’m actually trying to convey – just my impression, mirrors are immensely valuable, however imperfect. Db
Sorry, I didn't put as much time into my last reply as I should have. Usually when people talk about "rights" a lot, they are thinking in terms of the absolute existence of them, which is why I responded as I did (I've had many of these conversations before). I have no intention of putting red herrings out there, but this is the natural of non-real time communication. We respond to what we think we're reading and there isn't an opportunity for real-time correction and feedback.
I think we agree more than we disagree and I also should have a better understanding of what you mean by Classical Liberalism and Koinonia to have a more constructive dialogue. From what little I understand now, it seems those are very similar to voluntaryism except they allow for a ruler to be put in place. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I didn't see your response to my point about the minarchy/classical liberalism ideals leading to the U.S. military industrial complex we have today. Yes, you can argue those ideals got off the rails and that's what caused the problem, but we've heard similar arguments from those who argue for the "ideal" of communism and complain it was an implementation problem that caused all that human suffering.
I'm not convinced voluntary, mutually beneficial actions are the best way forward, but I certainly hold that opinion currently. I don't call my ideals "Truths" with a big T, but I do think they are pretty darn compelling and I'm certainly open to something better if it exists given the current context of reality.
Possibly. I still want to improve the world which may have some evangelical "Jesus savior complex" world view roots to it.
I see politics as a way for managing power over others. I see anarchism not as a political philosophy but the appreciation that this approach is fundamentally flawed as it leads to corrupt centralization of power over time. You may think everything will do that as it's part of nature, but that's where us reading a lot of the same books may help such as Rothbard's For a New Liberty, a Libertarian Manifesto.
Either way, these are fun conversations, but we'd both probably get more out of them if they were dynamic in nature via video chat or something. Maybe we could do that at some point in the future. :)