Friday, May 9, 2008

Anarchist

Post 3:


There is very little I dislike more in a person than one who drinks way too much koolaid. No matter what that koolaid is I don't like it in a per at all. Most people drink koolaid about simple things, like computers (Mac and Linux), schools (Yale and Harvard), football (Patriots), and the like. However, some drink koolaid that makes them so distorted, so odd that they are able to go around any criticism, any clear logic, all of that and keep their point. Look at the Paulites, look at the Conspiracy Theorists, look at the income tax evaders. However, there is no group of koolaid drinkers that I despise more than anarchists. While there might be some that are able to properly argue their position and hold their ground, most simply hold this position because of what they believe it is. I realized that anarchists are something THAT REALLY GRIND MY GIGANTIC NOTCHED WHEELS!!


Let us start by looking at what exactly a Anarchist is: As defined by Merriam Webster [quote]absence of government [/quote]. Now, based on that definition the real Anarchist is very simple, very basic. They do not support a government. Now, if the anarchist has that position I really can not say or do anything about it. We can argue over the extent government should be (as a Lockeovian I know the limits and allowances I would like to place on government) and the like but really there is nothing to do. Those type of anarchists are fine in my book.


However, the sad thing is, most Anarchists think that anarchy would be much more than this. They think that it would be a utopia, with all rights preserved and freedom. Tell you what people, that can not happen. They think that without governmental interference (remember, as a Lockeovian I am fine with government protecting Life, Liberty, and pursuit of property (and any derivatives thereof)) the people will be free. While we are free on one scale, when one thinks about it it is not any great scale. What am I free to do? Well, I am free to die if my neighbor is stronger than I. Most Anarchists think that somehow human nature will keep us sane and keep us from all killing each other. The problem with that is we have seen time and time again why we need government to keep us safe. Do they think we suddenly just up and changed?


Besides the obvious flaws in their logic listed above the other thing that annoys me the most about anarchists is their idea that anarchy will last. If we suddenly went into an anarchist system I would give it 3 days tops, at that point I want to sleep. We fall into lawlessness, killings, rapes, stealing all around. I stay awake, keep my gun ready, but grow tired. I notice my neighbor (who I have been watching quite suspiciously) is nodding off. I have two options: one - Try to take him out and get his stuff - or two - team up and switch watches. Boom, there is a tribe. Suddenly, we no longer have anarchy. So, is it worth it to have three days of lawlessness to get back to tribal warfare? This Lockeovian says NO!



Digg my article

27 comments:

Hajile said...

Anarchists are so retarded.

They must be the most ignorant and oblivious people in the world.

Anarchy would work, and only work, if everyone were perfectly good. Obviously, humanity is far from that.

How can they say and think that everything would work out? I can't even comprehend how.

While I dislike complete government, I retain that their must be ultimatums that should not be broken. But not to the point where you can't move from all of the regulations.

Barga said...

What is your ideal government?

Hajile said...

A democracy, I suppose. I like the system we have minus all of the little regulations. The best example, is how they are crushing the small business owners with all their "management", as they call it.

Essentially, I would prefer a democratic government with fewer rules and regulations, but enough executive power to keep the ultimatums, ultimatums.

Barga said...

The thing is we are not a Democracy, or even close.
what restrictions are you referring to?

Hajile said...

What are we, then?
What do you consider the definition of democracy to be?

Well... There are a few, but I can't think of any off the top of my head besides taxes.

Lookie.
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/sbqei0801.pdf

Barga said...

I do not see the point in your link.

We are a representative republic, nowhere near a democracy. Democracies only work on small scales as they (pure versions) require every person to vote on every issue.

I would like some so i can respond case by case (defend, argue, etc.)

Hajile said...

Yes, um... The link was useless.




[quote] de·moc·ra·cy

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States 4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.[/quote]

According to this definition, we are a democracy.

Barga said...

sorry, i thought we were discussing this through pure forms of the systems. Pure democracy is government of the people (origional root)
if we allow any variation there in, we could be a democracy. However, we are a republic

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic

A Reader in Pennsylvania said...

I agree with you that anarchy would never work, but I don't think you gave enough evidence to prove why not.

For example, you said that we have seen time and time again why it doesn't work .... I think you need to clarify this by giving some examples, because an anarchist reading this page would say "When? Where? You got nothing, you're full of crap," and ignore the rest of your very reasonable, well-thought-out points.

Further to this point, I think that your argument that we are all pretty hypocritical is a strong one, and in particular what you wrote about drugs v. abortion (as having control over one's body) is a fantastic example that really strengthens your argument.

You might also want to add the number of people who say that the Bible is the literal and exact word of God, but choose to ignore certain parts of it -- as I think this is similar to the Paulites and their Constitutional obsessions.

Anyway, great column, I'll stop by again soon.

Barga said...

To the reader from Penn.
Thanks for reading and responding. I do hope that you come back often (say, at least three times a week as that is how often I shall be updating) and comment then as well.

When I said time and time again I was referring to humans not treating each other well without government interference. Looking at most 'third world' areas, we see that unless outside (and local governmental) interference is applied the citizens go after each other for something as little as being born on the wrong side of a house. My point was that clearly humans can not work together well (something that Anarchists require) without governmental involvement

Thank you for the compliment there. It actually came to me when debating abortion rights with a Paul supporter who wants to end the war on drugs. He didn't realize that he was being hypocritical and wouldn't agree when i pointed it out.

Oh, you mean like the sections in Leviticus where it says something about fines of a shoe and marrying your dead brothers wife right below the section on gays and bestiality?

Thanks for the comments, please come back and reply to this comment and my other posts!

Hajile said...

Barga:

The definitions sure seem awfully similar. What are the defining characteristics that differentiate a republic and a democracy?

Barga said...

a democracy typically is direct, not elected. Ther term has changed after the conception of the US because we wanted to be a democracy even though we are not

Christian said...

Hi there barga and other critics of Anarchism I was referred your blogg on an Anarchist forum posted with the comment "why anarchism has never worked and fails". It is quite easy to understand how you think Anarchism is a futile political system based on your misconceived understanding of what it entails. I'll start with your first mistake and this doesn't just apply to this piece of writing, using a dictionary definition to give your reader an understanding is very bad writing and it makes assumptions that the reader has no ability of their own to pick up a dictionary(or go to the many dictionary sites even) to get the definition themselves, in short it is simply just filler. However when regarding the definition of an Anarchist and Anarchism this is a much larger mistake as the definitions given in dictionaries are for the most part entirely false (I am yet to find one that is actually correct). The truth to give a better understanding of what Anarchism stands for finding a quote given by the many anarchist thinkers would give everyone a far better understanding. It is helpful to gain a more solid understanding of anarchism by viewing a various collection of information provided by anarchists on what anarchism is. I will give you a more correct and specific definition of Anarchism.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that seeks to abolish oppressive and centralised systems namely the state representatives and corporations. Leaving free-based anti hierarchical co-operatives using direct social democracy run solely by the people "from the bottom up" to be the way issues and operations are decided upon. In fact barga the Democracy that you referred to in a later post is the exact same democracy anarchist advocate.

Christian said...

I don't know the anarchists you are speaking to, but the majority of us do NOT believe anarchism would become a utopia, however it would not be a lawless chaotic system like the state wants you to believe. Laws would be created naturally based on the common sense and status-quo of society and what they believe to be justified, this may vary from place to place but this decision making would be done by the people and society protected by the solidarity of the collective.

Anarchism has lasted in places far longer than 3 days, the three most important examples of this are the Paris Commune, The Spanish Civil War and The Zapitista Uprising. There are also many other examples of anarchism working in practice. You give the most abstract and played put hypothetical situation as to what will happen under anarchism, and in all moments were anarchism was in place Lawlessness and Crime were in fact decreased and that's not even including the crime of the state and corporations which is colossal in numbers!

So my point is that I don't necessarily expect you to agree that anarchism is the correct system. However before you criticise something it shows ignorance to base these criticism on assumptions. You will find that if you get a better understanding of the topic you choose to criticise you will also be able to debate with much more merit. I actually enjoy it when people have proper criticisms towards my political philosophy of choice, it allows me to be challenged and allows me to think critically, unfortunately most criticisms of anarchism are the same repetitive points based on misconceptions that I have answered several times before.

In short if you believe in concepts such as Liberty, Solidarity, Egalitarianism, Peace operated by the people under a process of Direct Social Democracy, then you may well be an Anarchist too! But please don't take my word for it, I encourage you to research and gain a better understanding because your critique was full of assumptions and misconceptions. Thank you for your time!

Barga said...

Hello Christian, thanks for stopping by, I hope that you come back and respond to this response and comment on my future posts.
The reason that I included the definition is clearly shown in your post. I was not able to argue against every form of anarchism that is possible so I had to pick one. I chose the pure meaning of the word and defined it so that people would know exactly what I am arguing. Your version of anarchy is harder to argue against and harder to come across as you described it. I hope you understand why I picked the version I did and why I defined it.

The problem with assuming that laws would be created naturally is that they do not. Without invoking Hobbes, Locke, or the like one can see that governments exist for a reason. When you get into lawless areas, you have tribal fighting over the most trivial of things. A large society (which is what any new government would need to work with) would not be able to function within these settings. Now, if you are proposing taking the government down to a Lockovian level that is all fine and dandy, but getting rid of government in it's entirety would lead to infighting over bullshit.

When I say working I mean working in it's form that I described. Communes are not anarchies, as they have a form of government. Furthermore, the SCW was not really that peaceful, and I think we both agree that peace is a top priority of any system. Of course crime decreased, with no laws regarding what is a crime and what is not it has to decrease.

You say democracy and anarchy in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive. I think you are using anarchy to say limited government (of course, set entirely by the people) and not the lack there of.
Thanks for your response

Christian said...

Hey again, I am more than happy to reply however to avoid going around in circles which I fear these conversations may lead to this may be my last reply. Although depending on how fired up I get may perhaps it wont be. I understand that you wanted to get/give a quick and snappy clarification as to what anarchism is defined as and naturally turning to the dictionary is going to give you those instant results you require BUT as I said before Anarchism as it is defined in any dictionary is entirely false. This is absolute, the definition I gave in the previous post is generally speaking what most anarchists believe. Many of us do don different schools of thought however most of these are based on small subtle differences in opinion on the operations, what I defined being the most popular and general anarchist school of thought, that being "Anarchism without Adjectives" There is an extremely small minority that state they are anarchists that believe in no form or organisational structure and believe in lawlessness and chaos which is what you seem to be criticising, but as I said they are the smallest minority, some anarchists have even coined a term for these people "anarchyists" and firmly believe that they are not anarchists but are in fact nihilists.

I am not sure what you mean by Laws are not created naturally. I don't understand what you would consider natural laws to be then. It is the belief amongst the anarchist community that these laws should be created based on the moral choice of the people democratically NOT imposed coercively via a centralised authority. Anarchism bases it's operations on how society believes things should run it understands society needs things like health, education, infrastructure, technology etc these can all be decided upon democratically, anarchists can even have leaders however leadership is a responsibility and servitude to the people not a representative or forced authority, the people the leadership serves must be chosen and must account for there actions. Leaders for example during the Spanish Civil War(An anarchist system was in operation) were in constant turnover based on the decisions made by the people and actually had to stand trial before the collectives to answer for their actions made during there time as council electives.

Quite a good number of Communes are anarchist in principal, in fact one of the first formulations of new schools of thought under the guise of anarchism was coined Anarcho-Communism popularised by a man named Peter Kropotkin, due to a more advanced industrial world it has become very unpopular and unrealistic however the more advanced version and second most popular school of anarchist thought being Anarcho-Syndicalism was later developed. I know I said I wouldn't get into schools of thought but these are important to note as you refute their existence in your claims.

The Spanish Civil War was not peaceful due to General Franco receiving support from Hitler and Mussolini and the collectives being fired upon with naked hands with no help from the "Allies" tactfully deciding that any armies sent to Spain to help Franco would help diminish the attacks they would receive. If you ask me they operated quite well given the circumstances and there was peace within the collectives. Justified defence is an unfortunate necessity but there was almost no accounts of malicious tyranny within the CNT.

Overall you seem to have a very general idea of what government is. This is actually how many anarchists are misconceived, anarchists define government as "the state" that operates via modes of authoritarian law and acts of tyranny and coercion, this is what anarchism opposes. If you define "limited government" as a form of direct social democracy then anarchism advocates your definition of "limited government". It is also important to point out that anarchists are sometimes considered "Libertarian Socialists" or "Direct Social Democrats". Although I don't necessarily expect you to believe me and I wouldn't want you to take my word for it, all I ask is that you find out for yourself what anarchists truly believe. You seem like someone who is interested in political theory and if you want a good reference point I would recommend this site http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/.

Now don't panic I am not trying to change your opinion or force doctrine down your throat(that would be terribly un-anarchistic of me wouldn't it?), as I said before all I am asking is that you take the time to gain a clearer insight into what you are criticising as you hold many misconceptions as to what anarchism entails(but so does most of the population so I wont hold it against you, the state wants you to hold these misconceptions as dissidents are a threat to their very luxurious and powerful way of life) as you may find the vision of your ideal system may be closer to anarchism than what you may first have believed. As this may be my last post don't think I am washing my hands with this and turning my back, if you take the time to reply I will at the very least take the time to read your reply, and of course if there are any specific questions you would like to ask me then I will answer. I am just not sure if I have any else to say on the matter that wont be just going around in circles or going into more specific detail! Thank you for your response I wish you all the best in your endeavours keep thinking critically we need more people doing so, I'm sure we can agree that apathy is the real danger!

Regards Christian

Barga said...

Christian - Please come back and post on the other topics as well. You seem very intellegent and I enjoy reading what you have to say (it makes me think)
What you are proposing I would call a localized (commune, town, village, etc.) perfect democracy. I am perfectly okay with that, provided there is a loose larger government that keeps the smaller cities from waring with each other.

Yes, I took your giant post and responded with a paragraph.


Apathy and voting without knowledge are the biggest dangers to humanity

Hajile said...

[quote]
Apathy and voting without knowledge are the biggest dangers to humanity[/quote]

Ain't that the truth.

Ben said...

Just look at what you wrote in that final paragraph. You and your neighbor forge a voluntary agreement for your common defense. This is exactly what the kind of spontaneous order that the philosophy of anarchism talks about. I guess you could call your neighborhood defense a kind of tribe. It is certainly not a government because it is 100% voluntary at the individual level. Governments are monopolies on force that coerce you into paying for their "services," like the mob. People become anarchists because they don't believe in using the proxy violence (called government) against their neighbors. Did you know that the symbol for Anarchism, the A for "anarchy" surrounded by an O for "order", describes the capitalist idea of spontaneous order?

Barga said...

Ben -
We already addressed the fact that I was talking about Anarchy as I defined it in the post, the lack of a government. A tribe does not fit that.

Doug said...

a business agreement that is not founded on any externalized protocols - that is to say, defined mutually by only the involved parties - and does not impose any abstract penalties simply cannot qualify as a tribe, especially in this case, where everyone involved has literally everything to lose.

if we're going to invoke the law of the jungle, then let's at least be honest about it. no hierarchal system will ever truly supersede survival instinct.

Barga said...

Doug -

I disagree, and i merely need Socrates to show it

Doug said...

barga-

socrates was only really good at saying "why?" or "nuh-uh," so i guess i agree that socrates is all you seem to need.

assuming that plato's accounts of socrates' life are truly accurate, socrates chose to consciously supersede his own survival instinct to make a point and preserve the well-being of his students. in no way was any value judgment made where he deemed his own life to be inferior to the will of the state. if anything, he decided that the continuation of his work was more important than the continuation of his life. we could also discuss his posterity, and his continuing appeal into the present day, and the ways in which these things have been preserved by his choice of martyrdom.

furthermore, i find it distressing that capital punishment for what would today be a 'first-amendment issue' is your example to support hierarchal government. socrates' trial and death have been echoed in many states, such as stalin's russia, and i really don't think that you are so comfortable that you would ignore such an occasion in your own country.

Jesus Girl said...

I agree that things about government need to change...who doesn't? But as much of an optimist as I am, I know that the world could not last without some form of central authority. If people were purely good and knew right from wrong without a shred of shadow hiding the truth, then fine, let anarchy be done. But the world is not that way, and people do stupid things.

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." -TS Elliot.

Barga said...

this is coming from the person who two years ago supported a full theocracy?

Anonymous said...

I don't need any fucking faith in human nature too believe that no one has the right to be the boss of me.

Barga said...

Still upset about the boers?

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.