Discussion of Anarchism

[Leoreth]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I always feel that anarcho-capitalists are a little squishy in their argumentation, and resort to the explanation that's most suitable for their current point. But maybe I only get that feeling because I hear about it from different people with different takes on the ideology.

 

[timtofly]

@ Intergrel/Cutlass

Is there a factor in violence, since most people are not violent, called the bully factor that happens?

How can more violence be better? I think that most people would be inclined to stay safe and expect safety in return. It is only the bully factor that makes violence acceptable.

The bully factor evolved is the state where bullies do get the freedom to be. Even the best "state" intentions devolve into the state being the tool of the bully.

 

[Leoreth]

Corporations are bullies. The state is the stocky, but kindhearted child you become friends with so the bullies can't take your breakfast anymore.

(Yes, I can stretch metaphors until you all writhe in pain )

 

[Cutlass]

@ Intergrel/Cutlass

Is there a factor in violence, since most people are not violent, called the bully factor that happens?

How can more violence be better? I think that most people would be inclined to stay safe and expect safety in return. It is only the bully factor that makes violence acceptable.

The bully factor evolved is the state where bullies do get the freedom to be. Even the best "state" intentions devolve into the state being the tool of the bully.

I'm not really sure what you are asking, rephrase?

The greatest violence occurs where there is the least state. But sometimes great violence happens with too much state as well. Either extreme can generate violence with no real limits. The odds of the average person being the victim of violence on any given day is maximized by having the least state and government.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well I suppose if you insist on taking a Marxist definition of it, then nothing works. Ever. And so you have no other options but to find some god to take your side.

There is no outside arbitrator that that will give you hard and fast rules that apply in all times and places. Forget that. There is no point in even discussing things if you are only going to insist on formalized and unchanging rules.

Then, to return to the original point, how can you describe political secession as being "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? If there is no outside arbiter, there is only the opinion of the contesting parties, and it does not seem immediately apparent that either of them should be privileged with that decision.

There is a fundamental difference, morally as well as practically, between an act of omission and an act of commission. The financial crisis the US went through in 2008 was an act of omission on the part of the US government. It both could have, and should have, acted preemptively to prevent it. But choose not to, largely because Big Finance in the US fought tooth and nail for decades to convince the government to get out of its way. The financial crisis was an act of commission on the part of Big Finance. They did it. They are responsible. It was their actions, taken for their interests.

But libertarians and anarchists (and conservatives, what strange bedfellows these people keep) say that it is all the government's fault, Big Finance was forced into it. It is a fundamental shifting of responsibility. And by doing so they justify not taking the steps that would prevent it from happening again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

When you shift responsibility like that, from those who did an act of commission to those who committed an act of omission, you not just failed to learn the lessons that would prevent it from happening again and again, but you reward instead of punish those people who actually are responsible.

And that is why it matters that the difference between omission and commission be kept clear.

When you blur the distinction of the matter, such as say slavery in the US, and say it was a governmental institution, when in reality the government simply declined to deal with it, then it leads to fundamentally wrong conclusions on what to do going forward.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not convinced that it's possible to discuss the various institutions such as Big Finance, slavery, the state, and so on, as existing prior to their involvement in society. They are mutually conditioning, so to talk about slavery as being a governmental or non-governmental institution seems to confuse history with legality. But, then, right-libertarians/anarchists aren't very big on the totality (give or take the occasional half-hearted flirtation with Nietzsche), so I can't say how they'd address this.

Oh, it would not be nearly as good as the Gilded Era. There just is not anything I can see in human history that would lead me to believe that it would work.

What you need to understand is that private violence is a profit maximizing strategy. Everyone is best off if they harm others. What kind of social stigma do you really think you can apply that will overcome that? In small, cohesive, and isolated communities social stigma as a control method may work. But it does not scale up. You cannot do it in a city. Much less a country.

I understand that very well, as it happens; I read my labour history. I'm simply of the opinion that private violence is this sort is invariably dependent on a more far-reaching state violence- not that the distinction between the two is necessarily that clear cut, mind you- which is why capital has, despite the proclamations of the anarcho-"capitalists", always remained firmly behind the state as such.

And, yes, maybe their control methods are complete balls. I can't say I have any faith in them myself. But the point is that they do exist, however limp and uninspiring as they may be, so if we're to properly engage with the cappie position that needs to be recognised- if only so that it can be refuted.

The point is that the actual violence a person is likely to receive in their lives is far greater in Somalia than it is in the US. You are far, far, more likely to be the victim of violence in a place without a functioning state than in a place with one. Amadeus may not want the system he wants because he wants unlimited violence, but that's what he will get. I want the system I want because the amount of violence is trivial in comparison to what he will have.

So saying I want violence, when what I want is a vast reduction in actual violence, is insulting at the least.

You seem to be getting hung up on violence, when I'm specifically talking about violence to an end. It may well be the case that Amadeus' program is, examined critically, the far more violent of the two; that is certainly my suspicion. But Amadeus's violence is a crime of omission, to return to the distinction you earlier observed, a misplaced faith in the ability of human beings living in a competitive society not to gut each other. Your violence is a crime of commission, a sombre request that the state commit violence against people who transgress against private property. As you yourself observed, there is a difference, so, as was my original point, it seems hypocritical of you to paint him as the stooge of capital when you are the one willing to commit what seems to the self-evidently greater crime on its behalf.

I'm not really sure what you are asking, rephrase?

The greatest violence occurs where there is the least state. But sometimes great violence happens with too much state as well. Either extreme can generate violence with no real limits. The odds of the average person being the victim of violence on any given day is maximized by having the least state and government.

Are "more state" and "less state" very helpful measures of anything much? For example, did Pinochet's Chile have more or less state than Atlee's Britain?

In all honesty, it seems like a confusing rather than enlightening approach to political analysis.

 

[Integral]

@ Intergrel/Cutlass

Is there a factor in violence, since most people are not violent, called the bully factor that happens?

How can more violence be better? I think that most people would be inclined to stay safe and expect safety in return. It is only the bully factor that makes violence acceptable.

The bully factor evolved is the state where bullies do get the freedom to be. Even the best "state" intentions devolve into the state being the tool of the bully.

That, my friend, is a unique misspelling.

Anyway, you have two points.

1. More violence can't be better, therefore government is bad. (there's some stuff about people being not violent in there as well)
2. Government involvement tends to be captured by the very entities it seeks to regulate.

The first point is extremely weak, I'm afraid. For your point to be right, the government must be the primary source of violence/loss of liberty in people's lives. Now at some margins that might be the case, but it doesn't lead to a reducto in which the best government is no government. Large governments can be oppressive, but large corporations, unions, and other institutions can also be oppressive. Ideally there's a balancing act involved, and one argument in favor of using government to rectify injustice is that, well, at least we choose our government. There is an interior optimum here!

The second point has considerable force particularly at current margins. The history of American regulation abounds with examples of so-called "regulatory capture," where regulated entities turn around and end up manipulating the regulator for their own benefit. We should look carefully at regulation, and we should think hard about revolving doors and incentive problems, but again this doesn't lead to a reducto in which no government is the best government.

 

[timtofly]

Thanks to both:

A bully is a bully in school. A corporate bully in finance. A state bully in world polotics. It is not reduced by scale. I think a government is only "good" for a couple centuries and then the cycle needs to start again. How it starts is up to the current populace.

1. More violence can't be better, therefore government is bad. (there's some stuff about people being not violent in there as well)
2. Government involvement tends to be captured by the very entities it seeks to regulate.

1.)A government that allows or fosters violence is not fair. My statement about violence and people cannot be put under the rug. People who have been educated tend to be less violent than those who who are allowed to "do as they please". The major problem is what to do with people after educating them. The other aspect is how to turn bullies into leaders, and keep it fair for the rest of society.
2.)If there is a state, obviously there has to be overseers in charge of such state. That is why a constitution is needed to keep them in check and in line as they fulfill their duties, hence after a century or two, the thing has to be rebooted to clear out RAMM and start again (Leoreth).

Bullies are leaders, but not all leaders have retained their bulliness. There comes a point in every education system in which those with certain qualities are prepared for the future leadership, but unless there are checks and balances the bullies will take charge and bulliness will remain in all aspects of leadership affecting the state as a whole.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Every day I feel the Situationist International is easier to understand, and even more relevant to our world. And not just that, but also seems to be more and more discussed in my little drip of the stream.

Any of the anarchists here also notice this?

 

[Cutlass]

Then, to return to the original point, how can you describe political secession as being "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? If there is no outside arbiter, there is only the opinion of the contesting parties, and it does not seem immediately apparent that either of them should be privileged with that decision.

And, like with so many other human decisions, people should use their judgment. Because nothing else is left.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not convinced that it's possible to discuss the various institutions such as Big Finance, slavery, the state, and so on, as existing prior to their involvement in society. They are mutually conditioning, so to talk about slavery as being a governmental or non-governmental institution seems to confuse history with legality. But, then, right-libertarians/anarchists aren't very big on the totality (give or take the occasional half-hearted flirtation with Nietzsche), so I can't say how they'd address this.

I can see where in discussions like this the concept of "state" at all is unhelpful. Anarchists and libertarians say "look at the evil perpetrated by the state", and what they really should be looking at is why the people, no matter what aegis they are acting under, acted as they did.

What a lot of these people who are throwing around the label "statist" fail to grasp is that the state is not the goal. It is a means to an end. Not an end in and of itself. With the absolutist and extractive government, the ends are the wealth and power of the elite who run it. And so it frequently happens that there really isn't all that much government in the states where government is the most oppressive. "Communist" states being the biggest exception to that, not because they desire big government as an end, but because they justify their domination of the system through an ideology that they can only pursue by means of a big government. And things tend to take on a momentum of their own after that.

However, you look at the majority of Africa, the majority of Latin America, much of it is every bit as absolutist and extractive, but without all that much government.

And, where there is the least government, there is the most day to day violence.

You have the greatest chances of being a victim of violence at both extremes. And what that means is that you have the least real freedom at both extremes. In a stateless society, whoever has the power to achieve their goals through violence will do so. Nothing is stopping them. Simply making the assumption that people will not resort to violence in the absence of the state ignores the fact that people do so every day. It is in their interest to do so. And the only time they don't is when the state prevents it from happening.

So if you do not want violence, you must have government. There isn't another alternative. Accusing the government and its supporters of wanting to be the only one carrying a big stick to hit others with ignores the fact that that stick isn't going to see nearly as much use as the infinite number of sticks being wielded for an infinite number of reasons.

The state is not the goal. It is a means to an end. And that end is peace, liberty, prosperity.

The nations without (effective) governments are even poorer than those nations with excessive governments. And the only nations who are truly wealthy, free, and prosperous are those where the political institutions are the most inclusive.

I understand that very well, as it happens; I read my labour history. I'm simply of the opinion that private violence is this sort is invariably dependent on a more far-reaching state violence- not that the distinction between the two is necessarily that clear cut, mind you- which is why capital has, despite the proclamations of the anarcho-"capitalists", always remained firmly behind the state as such.

And, yes, maybe their control methods are complete balls. I can't say I have any faith in them myself. But the point is that they do exist, however limp and uninspiring as they may be, so if we're to properly engage with the cappie position that needs to be recognised- if only so that it can be refuted.

Capital backs the state because capital receives a lot of services from the state. And in many cases, they'd like to get a lot more. Why work to earn when you can earn without working? Ultimately old money wants to control without having to earn. That happens over and over again. That is why people oppose inheritance taxes.

But to blame the violence of companies against labor on the state isn't really accurate. The government is a tool that capital can try to use against labor, but the violence is of the capital and for the capital. It is not of the state and for the state.

You seem to be getting hung up on violence, when I'm specifically talking about violence to an end. It may well be the case that Amadeus' program is, examined critically, the far more violent of the two; that is certainly my suspicion. But Amadeus's violence is a crime of omission, to return to the distinction you earlier observed, a misplaced faith in the ability of human beings living in a competitive society not to gut each other. Your violence is a crime of commission, a sombre request that the state commit violence against people who transgress against private property. As you yourself observed, there is a difference, so, as was my original point, it seems hypocritical of you to paint him as the stooge of capital when you are the one willing to commit what seems to the self-evidently greater crime on its behalf.

You're reversing yourself a bit here. You and Amadeus are making the mistake of thinking that violence is a state thing, and so you end it by ending the state. Where I am saying that violence is a human thing, and you end it by having enough state to suppress it.

Now in both cases it is an act of omission to allow the violence. But the violence resulting would be an act of commission on the parts of those people who actually, you know, engage in the violence. So I'm willing to commit a minimum amount of violence to prevent others from committing far greater amounts of violence, where Amadeus is willing to just get out of the way and allow unlimited violence. But he would prohibit anyone from acting to protect themselves from violence, and so that is an act of commission on his part. He is not just getting out of the way of the violence, he is actively aiding and abetting it.

So I am aiding and abetting the suppression of violence, even when that requires some use of violence. He is aiding and abetting the unlimited use of violence.

Are "more state" and "less state" very helpful measures of anything much? For example, did Pinochet's Chile have more or less state than Atlee's Britain?

In all honesty, it seems like a confusing rather than enlightening approach to political analysis.

If you want to compare any two states, then you have to really know a lot about those two. Atlee probably had more state, from what little I know of Chile at the time. I know Thatcher had more state than Somalia, and where were you likely to be killed?

An inclusive state can be large without being oppressive. And, in fact, that inclusiveness makes it the least likely to be oppressive. So a big, non-inclusive, state may have as much violence as little to no state has.

It is the inclusiveness that controls the level of violence, not the size of the state. But you should also consider Columbia, which is fairly inclusive, but simply lacks sufficient state to protect the people from private violence.

 

[GoodGame]

Not in the sense of Proudhon, Bakunin, or Kropotkin. The traditonal anarchists consider themselves anti-capitalist, which I of course am not. I'm starting to think Rothbard shouldn't have used the "anarcho" prefix when talking about stateless, free-market capitalism.

How is libertarianism distinguished from anarcho-capitalism?

 

[Tahuti]

How is libertarianism distinguished from anarcho-capitalism?

The former is an umbrella term into which anarcho-capitalism falls.