You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism
"If the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny."
Let me fix that for you with an actual definition of "government".
If the individual has the right to control himself, all external control is tyranny.
Anarchy means no rulers or without rulers, that is all. What exactly are you exposing? If you do not agree with my translation of "government" then please provide your definition of "government".
Note: I'll use the definition of anarchism described in the first quote.
This post was just to clarify my stance. I haven't started detailing what I regards as flaws. Which I'll be mostly addressing by engaging with pro-Anarchist posts on Steemit, since it's more effective.
That Tucker quote was just to highlight the sort of anarchy I'll be addressing when I say "Anarchists" for example. Rather than any specific school of thought.
At the heart of what I'll be "exposing" (I recognize this is hyperbole), will be the insignificance of anarchism, and conversely the arbitrary significance imposed on centralized government.
What if that external control is voluntary?
This is the case in many centralized government systems (and that's partly the point I'm making).
That in practice the focus on voluntarism is almost trivial.
Delegating certain rights, which endow an entity with more control over you, to protect your interests exemplifies what I mean
First of all the quote used does not give a definition of "government", it only uses the word. To answer your question "what if that external control is voluntary?", if you voluntarily agree to something then it is consensual, if your are being "controlled" then it is not. Every individual has contol over himself so if he CHOOSES to to follow external command then it is ultimately his choice thus making it consensual. There is no option to opt out of "government". Do you think freedom is trivial? Also can you delegate a right that you do not have?
Indeed, and my point is that centralized government is generally consensual (except in minority of tyrannical governments), so the push for Anarchy in most cases wouldn't offer anything different.
There is no option to opt out where a significant group of people can enforce particular government. This problem would almost certainly remain in an anarchic system.
I refer to the focus on voluntarism as trivial, because it's nonenforceable. All it takes a sufficiently influential and interested actor to oppress your freedom.
You can if that right is crowdsourced as it were - i.e. 1 million villagers pooling $1 into a security fund to kill malicious actors, endowing that machine with the right to enforce civility by killing.
"Centralized government is generally consensual"
What are you talking about? All I have to do is point out that taxation is involuntary. ALWAYS. Without "government" extorting its subjects it couldn't even exist. The push for anarchy is for a voluntary coexistence.
What I mean is that taxation is the result of voluntary engagement in delegative governance.
(very generally speaking, of course delegates may appoint non-elected members etc)
These delegates are endowed with certain rights over personal property, and the right to enforce that.
"These delegates are endowed with certain rights over personal property, and the right to enforce that."
These are "Rights" that no one has as an individual, and therefore cannot rightfully delegate to another.
The only thing that legitimizes these extrahuman "rights" when exercised by governments is the belief in the false idea that the group has the right to negate the rights of the individual.