Anarchism Exposed: Part 1 - Clarifying my stance and defining Anarchism
Part 2 - Debunking of larkenrose's argument
Firstly, I will make no reference to morality.
It's an unnecessary irrelevance, which encourages sophistry and word manipulation.
There can be no debate while a party can make appeals to arbitrary moral systems.
I will focus on discussions of autonomy, human interests and general human organization.
I assume that humans are individuals, with interests that may or may not coincide.
I will define human actions only by the extent of what is possible (since morality is out the window).
By Anarchism I refer to Individual Anarchism generally defined as "opposition to state or social control over the individual ".
For clarification, since I attribute no moral value on actions and ideologies, I cannot depict Anarchic systems as 'bad'.
By 'exposed' I generally mean stripping away the rhetoric, and considering the implications of state-less (centralized) governance.
I'm assuming from this post that you are against anarchism because at the very least its impractical? That's where I'm at. But when you say morality is arbitrary, I have to disagree. I think a society with no human sacrifice is better than a society with blood sacrifice because blood sacrifice is 'wrong.' I think moral judgement is unavoidable, and while our moral sense is not infalable, it can also act as a good guide, like when we are disgusted by pedofiles and serialkillers.
Well, at the very least, notions of morality don't need to be appealed to for pro-Anarchy arguments to hold.
Generally speaking, my beef with Anarchism is the arbitrary significance placed on centralized government.
And an 'oppressed vs oppressor' perspective of centralized government which masks the multi-layered reality of how governance systems emerge.
It also seems to ignore how individuals will oppress others if they don't magically follow voluntaryism themselves, as well as how they can do so without even realizing it.
Exactly!
How do you not follow voluntaryism?
By forcing or coercing people into doing things? I believe the distinction about voluntary may be missed by you two.
Earlier satire even said all human interaction is already voluntary....
My problem with Anarchism is that it ignores the organic waystates developed, and the forces in the world that make nation states viable and depending on your political views, desirable.
"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.
I feel as though specific anarchic schools of thought employ much more nuance in their anarchic philosophies that I could only disagree with points on a case-by-case basis. I'm also under the impression that the general crypto-anarchy espoused on Steemit and in cryptoland, refers to informal permutations of individualist anarchism.
2 No not really. Certain anarchic schools of thought don't even subscribe to morality.
For example, the prominent anarchist Max Stirner .
"According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of individuals is their power to obtain what they desire,[187] without regard for God, state, or morality" source
This was just the same as the other one though.
I think it's worth defining certain premises before I begin. So that there's no confusion resulting from unclear definitions.
Your own random definitions, sure.
Just makes me think that you either, take that name serious, and this is nothing but satire. And I would applaud you for that, you trolled a lot of people, it seems. - Or, you just make shit up as you go go about it. Which really doesn't make for interesting entertainment. And I'd have to find somewhere else to laugh. :(
"lack of rulers = decentralization"
Anarchy has nothing to do with lack of "rulers". It's about lack of centralized governance.
A voluntarily appointed ruler would not necessarily contradict with Anarchist ideals.
Whatever, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Lulz, did you just use wiki, as if where the truth, without bothering to check the source? xD
^ But you cannot, subjugate another person to the same, without their concent.
But sure, tell me all about what I know and don't know. That'll make your incoherrent blabber seem more intelligent. >.<
A voluntarily appointed ruler would definitely contradict anarchist ideals, as anarchy and all related anarchos based words means no rulers. You are confusing anarchy with Voluntaryism, and even Voluntaryism would cease to be voluntary the first time a law was made or enforced that was not universally accepted by all of the ruled.
Genius. I invited you to read this article which I believe is a nice collation of sources. Since you have no clue what you're talking about. Bro, If you just want my attention we can have a heart-to-heart on steemit.chat, I'm open and patient and caring.
Well, it was interesting bru. I'll give you that.
You seem to have no idea what governance and what centralization means, and perhaps it's a language issue.
I would invite you to check a dictionary.
Try to think and see if you can come up with a way for centralization to exist without a state.
Anarchy, is the lack of centralization. So I don't really understand your point.?
No. That's not at all what Anarchy means, in the pure sense.
Dude, as I wrote on the other thread (Which I can only asume from this comment here, that you didn't bother to read, even after making me go here instead.)
"An", Which means "without". And "Archon", which means "rulers".
The lack of rulers, equals decentralization. Since, a ruler, is a central power hub.
Guess I've wasted enough time on this comedy. Thanks for trying to be funny, but I guess I have a different sense of humor. <.<
@christowner
I'm not sure which moral context you are operating from.
How do you define what is legitimate?
I can understand defining actions by what they are.
i.e. consensual or not, coercive or not, honest or not etc