Another day, another closet
Apr. 20th, 2007 01:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI don't know if I've ever actually said this in my journal, but since it came out recently I should jump out of this closet. At a recent dinner get-together someone asked me about my politics since it wasn't terribly clear; I have claimed to be a conservative, yet I have strong feelings about what many people perceive as "liberal" issues. It wasn't obvious to them if I was a Democrat or a Republican or what.
I'm an anarchist.
To be clear, I'm not one of those bomb-tossing disarchists who call themselves anarchist but who in reality are little more than bomb-tossing, Starbucks-wrecking adolenscents who sit around smoking dope and wishing for an end to The Man. But the principles by which I try to make political decisions are primarily anarchist principles.
Anarchism contrasts itself from its opposite, Statism. Statism is the blanket term for all the existing government forms we have: communism, republicanism, democratism, totalitariansm, and so forth on. All of these systems, no matter what, have one overarching characteristic: in all of them there exists an authority (in totalitarian systems, an armed force; in representative systems, "the people") that grants to one societal institution ("the state") a monopoly power: the power to use initiatory violence with impunity.
In short, the government is the only institution we have that, if you make it mad enough, will send armed agents to your door to "correct" you.
This is the primary lens through which I view all legislation and the elections of all legislators. One of the early lessons of Discordianism is that every new law creates new criminals. Laws exist to outlaw something either by prescription or proscription. Anyone doing that something before the law passed was not a criminal; afterward, they are.
Every proposal brought before the legislature or the people needs to be judged on this simple basis: do you feel strongly enough about whatever it is that you believe someone, somewhere should be shot dead for it? If not, don't vote to make it a law.
In a representative republic, the people authorize an organization to ensure that the people live under stable conditions. Anarchism argues that that is merely a layer of inefficiency; if people are capable of governing themselves by interposing government between themselves and others, they should be capable of governing themselves just as well without it. Government is a layer which promotes the concentration-- and therefore the abuse-- of power.
Given the current working conditions I have to accept that anarchism as a socially organizing force is damnably unlikely. Too many people insist that they (and by extension they want to include "you") require some sort of "big daddy" to keep their baser natures in check. So many, in fact, that convincing them that their neighbors mean them no harm is impossible.
But that mild despair is no reason not to be an anarchist, any more than the popularity of religious thought be it mainstream Christianity or as loopy as the Psychic Friends Network is a good reason to not be an atheist. It is no contradiction to be a law-abiding anarchist; one can have principles and apply them to one's politics without likewise advocating the violent overthrow of city hall.
Anarchism right now means questioning every law that enters any legislature that governs you and asking yourself the anarchist questions: Is this law about more, or less, freedom? Does this law concentrate power or place it into the hands of citizens? And finally, does this law really address a problem the only solution to which is the application of the State's unique monopoly power, deadly force?
Anarchism is the most hopeful of all political ideologies, one that believes that someday humanity will be grown up enough to govern itself responsibly without the imposition of a superstructure. I'm hopeful that someday we might even get there. Until then, I'll continue to raise the black flag.
I'm an anarchist.
To be clear, I'm not one of those bomb-tossing disarchists who call themselves anarchist but who in reality are little more than bomb-tossing, Starbucks-wrecking adolenscents who sit around smoking dope and wishing for an end to The Man. But the principles by which I try to make political decisions are primarily anarchist principles.
Anarchism contrasts itself from its opposite, Statism. Statism is the blanket term for all the existing government forms we have: communism, republicanism, democratism, totalitariansm, and so forth on. All of these systems, no matter what, have one overarching characteristic: in all of them there exists an authority (in totalitarian systems, an armed force; in representative systems, "the people") that grants to one societal institution ("the state") a monopoly power: the power to use initiatory violence with impunity.
In short, the government is the only institution we have that, if you make it mad enough, will send armed agents to your door to "correct" you.
This is the primary lens through which I view all legislation and the elections of all legislators. One of the early lessons of Discordianism is that every new law creates new criminals. Laws exist to outlaw something either by prescription or proscription. Anyone doing that something before the law passed was not a criminal; afterward, they are.
Every proposal brought before the legislature or the people needs to be judged on this simple basis: do you feel strongly enough about whatever it is that you believe someone, somewhere should be shot dead for it? If not, don't vote to make it a law.
In a representative republic, the people authorize an organization to ensure that the people live under stable conditions. Anarchism argues that that is merely a layer of inefficiency; if people are capable of governing themselves by interposing government between themselves and others, they should be capable of governing themselves just as well without it. Government is a layer which promotes the concentration-- and therefore the abuse-- of power.
Given the current working conditions I have to accept that anarchism as a socially organizing force is damnably unlikely. Too many people insist that they (and by extension they want to include "you") require some sort of "big daddy" to keep their baser natures in check. So many, in fact, that convincing them that their neighbors mean them no harm is impossible.
But that mild despair is no reason not to be an anarchist, any more than the popularity of religious thought be it mainstream Christianity or as loopy as the Psychic Friends Network is a good reason to not be an atheist. It is no contradiction to be a law-abiding anarchist; one can have principles and apply them to one's politics without likewise advocating the violent overthrow of city hall.
Anarchism right now means questioning every law that enters any legislature that governs you and asking yourself the anarchist questions: Is this law about more, or less, freedom? Does this law concentrate power or place it into the hands of citizens? And finally, does this law really address a problem the only solution to which is the application of the State's unique monopoly power, deadly force?
Anarchism is the most hopeful of all political ideologies, one that believes that someday humanity will be grown up enough to govern itself responsibly without the imposition of a superstructure. I'm hopeful that someday we might even get there. Until then, I'll continue to raise the black flag.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Anarchy or idealism?
Date: 2007-05-05 10:21 am (UTC)Let's start with the principle/practice assertion. Being an anarchist in principle and a statist in practice is like being a virgin in principle and a whore in practice. It just doesn't work that way.
Total freedom does indeed imply total responsibility. And people do indeed strive for preservation and often dominance. But there's a bit missing here. Responsibility and self-preservation include proactive defense and, in some cases, arbitration and seeking recompensation for losses. Just as we are responsible not to harm anyone, we are responsible to protect ourselves from those who seek to harm us.
Your assertion that the state ensures self-correction is without grounds. How is a dictatorship self-correcting? And by what degree do you measure the self-correction? For clarity, let's contrast this idea with a system that does in fact have self-correction built in as a fundamental core: capitalism. Under a government, error correction is limited by the governmentally enforced channels, and correction is slow, very slow. Errors are also *enforced* by the government. If a bad law is passed, it takes time to get it repealed. Until then, the bad legislation is forced on the people. Compare this with an anarcho-capitalist system, under which error correction is almost immediate. There aren't laws; however, there are products and services. If there is an error in a service, profits suffer. There is no forcing the product on the people...they either buy or they don't.
In fact, a government can be seen as a highly ineffective and unfriendly business. Payments (taxes) are taken by force and services are provided, also by force. It's as if Wal-Mart were to knock on your door, take an amount of money they decide to take, and leave whatever goods they wanted you to have. But you get to vote in the yearly stockholder meeting!
I understand where you are coming from. Like I mentioned earlier, I used to have almost the same view. Your argument wishes that people were good at the core, while it assumes that people are bad. (It covers all the bases.) This is why you advocate the system that you do.
Now for the heart of my argument--the main point. I would point out that the innate goodness/badness of humanity has been debated since the beginnings of philosophy, and I doubt anyone has or can give a satisfying answer. What we want, what we desperately need, is a system that works independently of a human tendency towards good or evil. We want a system in which it doesn't matter if people are basically altruistic or self-interested. Anarchy (specifically anarcho-capitalism) could be such a system, because it prevents a monopoly of power (government) while providing mechanisms for reward (profit) of those who offer what people want/need and punishment (loss of profit) of those who do not offer what people want/need.
I don't believe that any system can be ideal. We are not machines. (Heck, even machine systems break.) However, I am fully convinced that anarchy does give the greatest *possibility* for human happiness. I further believe that it is achievable and sustainable, and that is why I took the time to draft this reply.
Re: Anarchy or idealism - PART 2
Date: 2007-05-09 04:39 am (UTC)