Anarchy and Compassion
There is a certain segment of anarchists who want to emphasize their peaceful intentions by calling their creed "Compassionate Anarchism." Unfortunately, many of their "compassionate" positions betray a deep misunderstanding of human nature, economics, and power.
The most obvious error is in terminology. Capitalism is condemned as antithetical to compassion, but the term is used to conflate the diametrically opposed concepts of free markets and corporate collusion with government. Free markets are the result of a compassionate respect for the equal and reciprocal rights of others to associate and exchange voluntarily without imposing coercive force against them whereas the modern corporate system relies on government-granted privileges and protections through coercive force against peaceful people. This should be an obvious distinction to anyone who claims the title of "anarchist," but socialist propaganda clouds minds. In fact, the "compassionate anarchist" usually claims the authority to govern others, redistribute wealth according to their own concept of equality and fairness, and threatens violence against any who dispute their dictates.
Image credit. This is as close to finding the original source as one can be. Further links from here are all apparently dead ends.
The free market is completely cooperative. Voluntary exchange only occurs when both parties cooperatively perceive mutual benefit and agree to make an exchange. The price system is a decentralized organizational and informational network that offers incentives for better cooperation. It is pure anarchy, with no rulers or subjects. It appears chaotic, but the result is an organic emergent order. Competition is sometimes cited as proof of the destructive effects of the free market, but what is competition if not the desire to better serve others through some combination of more efficient production, higher-quality products, lower prices, or new products/services? How is this destructive? Greed is curbed by the need to serve others in order to profit. Only when political power supported by a widespread religious belief in its legitimacy interferes with this process do we see the boogeyman the socialist fears in the "capitalist system."
Further, nothing in the free market precludes voluntary communes, cooperative business models, living as a primitivist, forming a syndicalist collective, or anything else any hyphenated anarchist philosophy advocates. The free market philosophy does not somehow forbid charity, or mandate that all exchanges be a cutthroat competition. In fact, government is the organization that cracks down on soup kitchens and supports the corporations that seek to maximize profits by screwing the consumers through the prevention of market choice.
There is no compassion in coercion, even if you excuse your coercion through references to a "greater good" and some nebulous concept of "fairness." There is no rationality in citing abuses by the government to excuse attacks against people who disagree with you. There is nothing anarchistic about a central planning committee that claims the authority to govern others, no matter how you try to twist your words. The first step in compassion is removing the shackles from your fellow man, not trying to make new ones according to your design.
The desire for revenge, whether the cause is real or imagined, will destroy any efforts toward real progress. Remember that justice fundamentally requires the identification of a specific violation of rights, and restitution by the specific violator of those rights to the victim of such violation. "The rich" are not automatically guilty, and "the poor" are not automatically victims. Ideologies of collective guilt and collective victimhood through any analysis other than the plunder by the specific members of the political class political class against the specific members of the productive class falls flat.
If your brand of "anarchism" calls for initiating coercion, rethink your beliefs. There is no compassion in government, no matter how it may be organized. There is likewise no compassion in demanding the power to rule others in its stead, no matter how you try to justify it, because you will then be that which you claim to oppose. If we are to build a better future, we need better ideas. Better ideas must be supported by reason, not the same cycle of blame games, power grabs, and emotion-driven sophistry that has reinforced The State throughout history.
If you like this post, please comment, follow, and resteem!
Anyone that calls themselves an anarchist and condones forcing other to do anything is contradicting themselves.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
You can check them against the consensus of what anarchism is, if you like.
This so-called consensus of what anarchism is is also completely against private property, correct?
You would have to read the book for yourself: What is Propety by PJ Proudhon, if you want to find where that idea comes from.
No anarchist is looking to take away your shoes, or winter jackets.
The way I see it happening is we keep what we have and move forward.
The wealthy won't be able to care for their mansions and plantations so they will probably be taken up by the homeless when they are abandoned by the servants that no longer have to slave for the rich to get supper.
So, when the waltons have nobody to work their stores, I would imagine that the workers would just pick up what is laying around rather than wait for new to be made, but if we need to, we can.
PJ lived in an era and place where homesteading was not the primary basis for property claims. When property rights are derived from government grants, property is indeed theft. However, under homesteading, land ownership is under the same principle as shoe ownership. And in the US, government has always sought to convert homesteading into a government grant. This usurpation does not negate the principle.
property is indeed NOT theft.
If I build something...it's mine.
And if you build something in order to trade it for something else, it's yours until you trade, and then the thing you traded it for is yours instead. No one else has a higher claim.
exactly right.
HOWEVER...it seems that we're all getting richer and richer.
although I didn't build the steel mill, or mine the ore, or work the metal, I bought the saw.
I can use it to cut wood (which I didn't fell the tree, mill the wood...etc)
There's a bunchaton of added wealth from legacy technology pretty much free for anyone to use...THAT's not theft.
That's the beauty of the decentralized free market with its division of labor.
That's an interesting point.
When profit is removed from the equation nobody needs to steal to get ahead and property will be secured by a general agreement to ask for things rather than to employ hooks and crooks, imo.
Currently the body politics accepts that some will be sheep and some would be wolves, the 'education' system has reinforced this since time immemorial, since the first two men decided it was easier to hit people with sticks than to farm.
PJ's philosophy failed to win the world, some of that is attributable to the masses being largely illiterate, or too poor to have books.
In the defense of the anarchists from the last two centuries Walmart was not available to serve as the backbone of regime change.
Today, and on any given Tuesday, the workers can simply keep working, but stop paying, and all this globalist crap comes to an end, but they won't, mostly because they have been dumbed down to the point that they recognize slavery as freedom, imo.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Profit cannot be removed from any equation. Value is subjective, and voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial. Even original appropriation of natural resources for immediate use is profitable to the individual as proven by his value of the result of such labor. Reducing profit to a monetary accounting term clouds rational thinking rather than revealing any real truth. I covered the matter of value, prices, and trade in more depth in a previous post.
And no, that previous comment was not an example of the personal incredulity informal fallacy.
So, tell me, Jacob, can the world exist without crapitalism?
I do believe it is time to return the favor:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
Define your terms. The post makes a clear distinction between different opposing concepts people like to conflate under the term "capitalism," and you completely ignored the distinction between property claims through homesteading/exchange and government grant.
Society functions best through recognizing and respecting the universal and reciprocal spheres of individual authority. Property, trade, and profit all have a valid and beneficial place within this framework. The State corrupts everything good, and seeks to twist it. You appear to recognize only the corruption and refuse to acknowledge the core principle beneath it.
It's not the first time you've told me to go away and read 🙄 I've read but I regard this as a conversation.
You make a good point. I had a similar thought when I thought of the supposed wealth of say Apple. What does it truly own if the banks shut down and the governments disband?
But, and I think you know this, property mainly refers to land, your home, your business. That things you have will not be "redistributed" or taken if you cannot rest your hand upon all what you consider your own at one time.
I can't help you if you don't want to do the research.
I can't force the knowledge into your head, if you want to operate from a position of supposition, how do you want me to help you?
More supposition?
How much do you need?
Do you really need gold toilets and 470 pairs of shoes?
I mean, if you do, and your neighbors agree that you have it coming, feel free to order it from the webz, but you got to know that what you consume comes from the work of others, unless you did ALL the work yourself.
Conspicuous consumption will go away, for the most part.
I mean, really, once your house is paid for, and supper comes in every night, how much more do you need?
If you think that we all just need to know a certain passage from a certain book and we'll "get it" then you may as well live as a hermit but that's not how discussions go, or not how they go well anyway. It's not super wonderful to begin a conversation with required reading, as if for some course you are teaching.
You imply that doing the research leads you to the same conclusions as you. You presume much about me but don't engage with me honestly here. That's to both our loss.
sorry, i got interrupted and have to run.
I wish I could resteem this to the world. I seldom go to the farcebook unless for work, but this is going to be shared there as well.
It's difficult for people to wrap their heads around anarchy-- everything we're told from birth is designed to make us abhor the idea out-of-hand, with no thought at all. But IMHO it is the only viable philosophy if we want to achieve any form of true freedom.
Thank you, friend, for yet another awesomely well-written article about fundamental issues. Instantly re-steemed...
I have run into some of these critters on Steemit. Very curious indeed. Now I will be able to refer them to your fine article. ;)
😄😇😄
I appreciate the kind words.
I've not made a study of anarchy, but can't see how it would work in anything other than a utopia. I prefer being a NAP Libertarian as the least of all evils, and I view governments as necessary evils.
Minarchism is Utopian. Any level of government is antithetical to the NAP. A territorial monopoly in violence is never necessary for anything, even if you pretend you can keep it small. Public choice economics and the psychological effects of power guarantee corruption and abuse and growth of the State. What do you imagine the government needs to provide that cannot be better provided and funded voluntarily?
What do you imagine the government needs to provide that cannot be better provided and funded voluntarily?
I need the government to protect you from me and vice versa. In a word, courts. I pull here from a Jefferson quote:
Any level of government is antithetical to the NAP.
This is a little more difficult to rebut because the government's foundation is coercion. However, the government should solely have one job: to protect the rights of the individual when the individual cannot protect herself. Here I pull from Kant:
Human nature dictates the use of force. History has yet to disprove me (unfortunately). Therefore, I choose a republic, which history again supports as the least of the four evils.
I also don't really believe anarchy possible because according to anarchy's Wikipedia page:
And hierarchy is a fundamental tenet of humanity (beginning with families. Imagine if children were equal to parents).
In my mind, anarchy results in chaos, and as the wise Jordan Peterson says, the ideal space to inhabit is exactly between order and chaos.
Imposed order produces chaos. Government is responsible for wars, economic turmoil, arbitrary police states, and more all in the name of "order." Even immediately after the Constitution's alleged triumph, we saw Washington and Madison using the power they centralized to create chaos in the name of order, and violate the very rights they claimed to uphold. The most glaring examples are the whiskey tax and the alien and sedition laws. Government cannot protect rights because the premise of government is always violation of rights before it can do anything else.
I wrote a longer post on the topic a couple weeks ago.
As for hierarchy, I do not oppose the principle when it is just. There are rightful hierarchies. However, this does not mean all claims to authority ate automatically legitimate. There are anatchists who disagree, but they are not very coherent.
Government isn’t responsible for wars, economic turmoil, and the police state. Those are just tenets of human nature. No, more and bigger government isn’t the answer; but neither is no government. Government will always be imperfect, but that’s because it’s made up of imperfect people. An anarchic state would have the void filled immediately by a tyrant.
On the other hand, I’d be very interested to see an experimental anarchic city, perhaps somewhere in Texas. The results would be interesting.
Wars are the result of government figures using the mythology of the State to persuade others to kill in their name. This is obvious from history. Disputes happen, yes, but only through government do disputes result in wholesale slaughter, carpet bombing, and nuclear weapons.
Economic turmoil can be brought about by famines and disease, but only government creates the boom-bust business cycle through central banking or protects cronies from competition to maintain artificially-high profits.
The police state is literally only possible through a monopoly police system operated by the government.
You fear anarchy because you do not understand it. Every time you engage in any voluntary association, you are acting as an anarchist already.
I don’t fear anarchy, per se. I fear human nature, which is in part curtailed by a just government (which admittedly are hard to produce). For me, it’s a fine line between a nanny state and anarchy, the first of which is too much order and the second too much chaos.
Ideally, we’d be living in a Jeffersonian republic.
If you fear human nature, you must fear government, because it rewards the worst in human nature while offering incentives to twist even the best intentions toward evil. @badquakerdotcom serialized a book called Authoritarian Sociopathy that goes into great depth on the nature of power and its effect on human psychology.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
A Jeffersonian Republic is no more sustainable than Marxist Communism. Look where it got the US in barely over 200 years.
Sounds in line with some of what Milton Friedman said, "We need government to protect one man from being hit over the head by another man."
Is that accurate, would you see yourself as a minarchist? I was also interested in his begrudgingly acceptance that the state should also require companies to pay for environmental damage, but obviously he rejects most other forms of tax. So in other words, the free market incurs a "market failure" regarding say pollution. In my latest post I referenced an article which was a rejection of not only the state, but Civlization itself, from a Native American ecological perspective which ultimately said we need less people.
I also have been interested by Johnathan Haidt recently who said this (regarding your idea that anarchism is too much chaos):
This was prefaced by him citing a study that found that the more "bound in" to society you were, the less likely you were to commit suicide. So I think, probably unfairly, he is suggesting that libertarian or anarchist world would be so chaotic for some people that they would kill themselves.
Which, to tie it back around, is probably what the environment needs 😅 Okay, bad joke, but the point is that anarchism is probably too radical for most, but I wonder if we can have some of it.
How would you summarize this "Jeffersonian republic"?
Governments are not responsible for wars?
Oxford Dictionary defines the noun War as: a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state
The example they give: "Japan declared war on Germany"
Are nations or states not by definition defined by the fact that they have a government?
Either I mistook the words you were using for the English language or you just
made an ass of yourself for saying that?I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude with the made an ass of yourself statement...
What I did mean is that you are using those words the wrong way or you don't know what they mean...
Even within the other part of the definition ''or different groups within a nation or state''.
That definition obviously includes the idea that those different aforementioned groups are warring for control of the State
Otherwise it's just a Brawl, not a ''War''
The only other context I've ever seen the word ''War'' used that's not in relation to the state is with relation to ''Gang-wars'' or ''Mafia-wars'', but again, those small organization are vying for control of a monopoly of violence over a certain area...
They may not have the legitimacy of the state, but they do emulate the behavior of the state on a microcosmic level, and that's not by accident or coincidence... They are quasi-states (Mexican drug cartels) or proto-states (ISIS)... They can extract ''taxes'' by racketeering and other forms of offering protection..
These gangs or crime syndicates are merely in competition with the State... they defy the very notion of the state holding a true monopoly of violence, as exemplified by their acts of it...
Anybody who's really looked into this, and most anarchists have to some extent, knows that the Government is just the legitimate de-facto mafia in power.
interesting. My friend @sterlinluxan uses the term compassionate (as well as relational) anarchism. I also use compassionate (and holistic), but neither of us call for coercion. We are both market anarchists. I'd be interested to read some of these compassionate anarchists who advocate force.
There's a facebook group called "Compassionate Anarchism" full of 'em. @sterlinluxan is a good egg, and I know there are many others as well, but the wannabe tyrants disguising their intentions with socialist sophistry get everywhere.
oh yes, one of the reasons I am not on fb. No room for pleasant discourse.
What then do we do about the man who is abusing his children on his own private property? Should we not stop him by force?
This is a very personal choice, blanket rules won't work, imo.
If you see somebody abusing his child and you help the child escape should the child be forcibly kept from returning?
If you watch Conan the Destroyer this movie revolves around a young girl raised her whole life to be a sacrifice to a god, is it right to interfere with her idea of being a princess?
You have to decide for you what you tolerate occurring around you.
Anarchism will have towns that you don't want to go to because they don't agree with your worldview.
The key is that no one is forced to do things they don't want to do nor be kept from doing what they do want to do.
If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo.
I think kids should be free to accept better offers down the street.
It would incentivize being good to your kids.
It's precisely the blanket rule of "no coercion" that I am challenging.
You avoided implying the use of force in the hypothetical by using the idea you could help the child be freed without violence. While this is obviously the simplest situation for the future of the child, the question if begged that say the child is freed, should there be no consequences for the abuser? You point out that the agency of the child should be respected. Then, to complicate matters further, what if the child wants to be abused?
I am not arguing for this, but this is the challenge. In this example the challenge from "sensible society" is that a child abuser should be punished.
And btw it's not like I'm expecting answers from you personally in defence of these ideas (or the post author to whom it was originally directed) but these are questions it is obvious to raise, and which should be considered, though perhaps not definitively or easily answered.
The distinction is the initiation of coercive force.
It can be hard to determine who fired first though, and who gets to decide what constitutes such an initiation. In todays world of considering certain form of speech as "violence" it's even more difficult. (btw I'm aware the Daily Wire is not a great source, but you get the point)
I'd like to say also for the record that I am simply having a debate here, this is not an attack, I may have been taken up wrong that I'm messing with you guys 😣
The difficulty in such determination does not negate the distinction the determination provides.
Good point, I accept that. I only think that if you are happy to trust your own judgement making that determination and accept the risk, you will find yourself in potentially deadly disagreement with folks.
Does the child not also have the natural rights to life, liberty, and property? That is where the question arises. I would trespass against a man who has shown himself deliberately trespassing against another.
Anarchism is taking responsibility for your own choices and actions. What would you do?
It's in judging when someone has "shown" themselves to be "deliberately trespassing against another" where the issue arrises. AFAIK this why we have the ideal that justice should be impartial, to attempt to remove the mistakes we can make in this judgement.
I'm not sure what I would do. I would certainly feel a heavy burden to act in some way. I would probably consult the people around me I respected and debate what to do. I imagine a verbal confrontation from the abusers peers would be best, but without violence if possible. But that might involve trespassing on their land / homestead, etc. or staking them out. What if they start shooting out? It could get complicated.
So I guess what I'm attempting to challenge is the idea that we shouldn't have to submit ourselves to the ideas of our community, even in some ultra thin sense, for example just to challenge serious abuse. @freebornsociety seems like a moral relativist to me, it seems apparent in "If the kids want to be sacrificed, you are wrong to interfere in that, imo." Establishing whether or not they want it, whether or not they have the capacity to make that decision (given they are children), and so on, is more difficult that just letting people do what they want.
I think people can probably only do everything they want, not if we have anarchism, but if we have no society.
I agree that @freebornsociety in his scenario is being a tad too dogmatic in his approach...
We should use a more rational approach, which is the one I tried to outline above?
Hope that one helps to clarify.. Ask any questions if you have any as I've pondered anarchism a lot and read almost all of Malatesta and Kropotkin :)
Thanks, but just to make my angle clear, I'm not looking for a quick way into the secrets of the great anarchist thinkers as @freebornsociety is suggesting, I've read widely, I am seeing how the ideas hold up in real person to person discussion. It's not that interesting to get a couple of books and have them do all the talking for you. (I'm not saying you're doing this)
Reading your other long comment now.
Anarchy for me, is just a label that the ordered isms must have to describe everything. I despise systems in all forms, humans have enslaved themselves by measuring, labelling and creating systems.
Don't despise systems in all forms...
Your body is a system
The Universe is a system...
Everything that is Primordial and Essential take the form of a system...
Except for the Almighty, everything is a system...
Let me just give you the definition of a system: a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole...
Work on that hate...
But I agree with what I assume you meant by what you said: the socio-economic and political systems of our day and age are completely out-of-whack and twisted... They make absolutely no sense except serving the interest of a handful of lizards