4 ms·

In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.

by someguyorother 6y ago

zepto 6y ago
That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.
- nybble41 6y ago
  The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "minimum"—it is perfectly possible to be both, if you define the minimum as zero. The difference is academic, of course, so long as the current level of power relationships in society is well above what even the liberal democracy advocate would consider "optimal".
  - zepto 6y ago
    A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic. I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perennial question.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I'm going to start out with the disclaimer that I am not personally opposed to all power relationships in the very broad sense used by some anarchists. I believe that there are universal natural rights, including both self-ownership and property, and that people have a right to enter into ongoing power relationships with others so long as they do so voluntarily of their own free will. So instead of "power relationships" the rest of this comment will use the term "force" or "aggression"—by which I mean power relationships involving violations of the individual's natural rights without their freely-given consent, except as a proportional defensive response to actual or imminent aggression by the other party. This is more-or-less the standard libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist definition of aggression. With all that said, the answer depends on whether you're talking about the minimum amount which is actually present or the minimum amount which can be considered "legitimate". It would be nice for both to be zero, of course, but I think we both agree that some amount of aggression is inevitable in practice—we aren't likely to eliminate all violent crime, for example, no matter how hard we try. The minimum amount of "legitimate" power, however, is trivial to simply define as zero. We are under no obligation to consider any act of aggression legitimate. The distinction between anarchism and minarchism lies in how much aggression is deemed legitimate, not how much is present. The anarchist recognizes that aggression exists but does not consider any aggression to be legitimate, even when the goal is to reduce the overall level of aggression. The minarchist is willing to sanction a certain amount of aggression in order to achieve what they consider to be a greater good. In my opinion the minarchist approach is neither principled nor pragmatic. It makes you an accessory to the aggression, normalizes it, and sets the stage for others to argue that ever increasing acts of aggression can be justified "for the greater good". Humans readily justify atrocities on the basis that a society organized "the right way" would somehow be free of violence or other ills. It doesn't work out well in practice. Better to aim for no aggression and consistently oppose such acts wherever you may find them rather than making exceptions.

In that case, the anarchists would try to find/develop a society that minimizes the number of power relationships.

zepto 6y ago

That’s exactly what an advocate of liberal democracy would say that they are doing.

nybble41 6y ago
The anarchist sees all power relationships as a problem, and would eliminate them all given a chance. The non-anarchist advocate of liberal democracy sees some power relationships as legitimate (if only to prevent other, presumably worse ones) and is seeking an "optimal", rather than minimal, level of power relationships. The difference between "anarchist" and "minarchist" lies mainly in what you consider to be the "minimum"—it is perfectly possible to be both, if you define the minimum as zero. The difference is academic, of course, so long as the current level of power relationships in society is well above what even the liberal democracy advocate would consider "optimal".
- zepto 6y ago
  A good distinction, and I agree over all, especially with your final paragraph, although I am not sure it’s completely academic. I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I think that anarchism is an idea that necessarily leads to minarchism. Once you get to minarchism, the debate is then back to ‘what is legitimate power?’ which is the perennial question.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > I have never heard any articulation of how the minimum can actually be zero that is anything other than a straw man. I'm going to start out with the disclaimer that I am not personally opposed to all power relationships in the very broad sense used by some anarchists. I believe that there are universal natural rights, including both self-ownership and property, and that people have a right to enter into ongoing power relationships with others so long as they do so voluntarily of their own free will. So instead of "power relationships" the rest of this comment will use the term "force" or "aggression"—by which I mean power relationships involving violations of the individual's natural rights without their freely-given consent, except as a proportional defensive response to actual or imminent aggression by the other party. This is more-or-less the standard libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist definition of aggression. With all that said, the answer depends on whether you're talking about the minimum amount which is actually present or the minimum amount which can be considered "legitimate". It would be nice for both to be zero, of course, but I think we both agree that some amount of aggression is inevitable in practice—we aren't likely to eliminate all violent crime, for example, no matter how hard we try. The minimum amount of "legitimate" power, however, is trivial to simply define as zero. We are under no obligation to consider any act of aggression legitimate. The distinction between anarchism and minarchism lies in how much aggression is deemed legitimate, not how much is present. The anarchist recognizes that aggression exists but does not consider any aggression to be legitimate, even when the goal is to reduce the overall level of aggression. The minarchist is willing to sanction a certain amount of aggression in order to achieve what they consider to be a greater good. In my opinion the minarchist approach is neither principled nor pragmatic. It makes you an accessory to the aggression, normalizes it, and sets the stage for others to argue that ever increasing acts of aggression can be justified "for the greater good". Humans readily justify atrocities on the basis that a society organized "the right way" would somehow be free of violence or other ills. It doesn't work out well in practice. Better to aim for no aggression and consistently oppose such acts wherever you may find them rather than making exceptions.