The "right" to rule?
These self-titled "anarchists" really refer to representative government, so I'll base my argument on that particular system of governance.
A representative in this particular political context, is an elected individual to whom governance rights are conferred.
In a standard representative government, delegates are chosen to make decisions in the interests of the groups they're representing.
The reason why humans elect to appoint delegates is to transfer the burden of societal organization to a set of trusted individuals.
Necessarily, they also endow their delegates with wherewithal to enforce societal organization (for example legal exemption).
Why would you elect an individual to whom you will confer governance rights, if you already had governance rights yourself?
They're not "claiming" anything you gave them governance rights.
That "bossing" around is a part of the governance rights you gave them.
Perhaps what Steemit-anarchists are truly arguing is that these representatives should have no exclusive rights.
However, this would defeat the purpose of representative government.
In practice, representative government doesn't work so perfectly, and I believe improvements can be made, but there is nothing inherently coercive about representative government.
weak
Which part?
How can someone 'represent' me w/o my consent?
How can you delegate a right to a 'representative' that you, yourself, don't have?
"Elected individual", "representative", "government"...all artificial titles which don't change the fact that you're simply talking about PEOPLE who are using coercion/violence against other PEOPLE.
Of course in electoral representative government, those who didn't vote or voted for a sufficiently unpopular person don't get represented. My point was mainly that it's a sufficient widespread group of the population (generally a majority) that elect representatives. Such government comes from widespread consensus.
You personally can't delegate a right, but together you can pool a "right" to an entity.
E.g. the right to enforce physical security
What's wrong with people consensually inviting coercion?
But it isn't a majority of the populace that elects rulers...in America its usually around 20-25% that elects the majority ruling party.
If I can't delegate a right I don't have and neither can you how can we collectively do so? Again, how do you delegate rights (specifically taxing and legislating rights/powers) that you don't have?
When did/do people (which "people" btw?) "consensually invite coercion"? The very idea of "consensual coercion" makes no fucking sense, you realize that, right?
If you think a master-slave/ruler-ruled situation enforced by coercion/violence--which is inherently an UNequal and UNfree system--is the only or best way we as humans can live w/each other just say so and stop trying to cover up the truth w/propaganda about how "we" choose rulers, how people I didn't vote for and don't want 'represent' me, etc.
IMO every statist, if he's being honest w/himself, must admit a few things:
He spends from his entire childhood to early adulthood in a state-run/controlled school system which inculcates in him as strong a belief in statism as spending 12 years in a fanatical religious school system would inculcate a strong and irrational belief in whatever god/religion this system taught him to worship.
He lives in a society which reinforces his irrational belief system, since the vast majority of people have also been indoctrinated in statism and because every center of power/influence also reinforces statism (just like people in a church/religion all reinforce their own collective irrationality/insanity).
He gets to participate in the political ritual of voting which gives the illusion that his choice matters or that he is in control--when in fact it does NOT change the fact that someone else has the power to make decisions FOR him, against his will and wishes if necessary. IMO there is a good deal of Stockholm Syndrome at work here as well, because to admit the truth about the system would be to reject a system that the statist has had deeply ingrained in his pysche as well as admitting that he is, in fact, NOT free.
Letting the slaves vote for new figurehead 'representatives' every so often was an evil-genius move on the part of the masters...forcing the slave children into schools run by the slave-masters was even more brilliant..."slavery is freedom"...
I'm not a statist. But I'm not rich enough to survive in an individualist anarchy.
Not sure what being rich has to do w/surviving in a world w/o rulers...living in a state doesn't guarantee survival either (ask the Iraqis and Libyans) and most anarchists have nothing against VOLUNTARY collectives (they are natural and beneficial), we just don't think there should be one set of rules (i.e., no rules) for a ruling class and another for a ruled class.
Nope, I certainly didn't. You see, in my view, I don't have the right to govern anyone but myself. And that's not a right I've delegated to anyone else.
Sure, apart from maintaining mass, systematic, threats of violence against peaceful people, backed ultimately by the willingness of government agents to use deadly force, there's nothing at all coercive about it [eyeroll].
What I meant was: every member of a village invests one dollar into a fund used to fund private militias, only five people are competent enough to invest appropriately, so they effectively end up with the "right" to enforce militaristic governance.
It's a crude example but should get my point across. The idea was just to show how it evolves out of collective consensus.
Imagine every member of a population were appropriately represented in government. And they all agreed that a select group of people could punish them, whenever certain rules were broken. Would you consider that coercive?
Have they voluntarily entered an explicit contract with the rulers (while not under duress by those same rulers)? No citizen in the world right now has. If not, it's coercion - and more importantly a rights violation by the 'rulers' against the 'ruled'.
@kingkrawdad
I was talking about a representative government in general. Plus I did say "generally a majority" not systematically.I think the use of the word "right" is the problem. Right in this context just means a role. You appoint someone in a governance role. A security role etc...And you create legal infrastructure that complements his/her role.
So you question is: How can you collectively appoint people?
The point was to show you that what you call coercion arises out of consent, in a pure representative system that enforces governance.
People elect representatives in governance roles which enforce rules (which could involve physical force). But the point is that people consented to this in appointing them at these roles.
I don't. But the thing is, I am convinced in an anarchic system, with no established legal infrastructure (in the short term), people with resources (security etc...) will prevail - hence I'm not "rich enough" yet.
Atm, I'd just prefer improved representative governance.
fuck you troll
Haha. Typical Steemit-anarchist. Can't argue, cry.
I probably shouldn't have said FU, I was more mad at myself for attempting to talk higher mathematics w/someone who hasn't figured out that 2+2=4.
“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.”― Confucius
After you've mastered Wisdom 101 get back to me...
I agree to some extent that the situation of a representative government vs the individual is not totally coercive.,as many people have given an ill-informed consent to this state of affairs. But there is a power i mbalance on many levels. One is the monopoly on violence that the state holds. Another problem is that the government,or politicians in general,are not held to their promises,so they can promise what they want,and political memory is very short.
If politicians were bound by their word to represent voters,or a group of voters,it would make much more sense.
Most people believe that parlamentarism is not a very good system.
The problem is that they believe that no other system is possible. This is false.
Here is one tip for a solution,by the great Murray Bookchin:
Libertarian municipalism
Starting in the 1970s, Bookchin argued that the arena for libertarian social change should be the municipal level. In a 2001 interview he summarized his views this way: "The overriding problem is to change the structure of society so that people gain power. The best arena to do that is the municipality—the city, town, and village—where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy."[27] In 1980 Bookchin used the term "libertarian municipalism", to describe a system in which libertarian institutions of directly democratic assemblies would oppose and replace the state with a confederation of free municipalities.[28] Libertarian municipalism intends to create a situation in which the two powers—the municipal confederations and the nation-state—cannot coexist.[27] Its supporters—Communalists—believe it to be the means to achieve a rational society, and its structure becomes the organization of society.