7 ms·

Why shouldn't the government keep tabs on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government?

bediger4000 14y ago
on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government Hmmm - yes, why not: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4 http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4
- tsotha 14y ago
  Doesn't apply.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    How so? Because they're old, rich, white "Republicans" rather than poor, young "anarchists"? Is it the very word "anarchist" that causes the difficulty, because that's what it looks like to me.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Because the Republicans are not proposing the elimination of government by any stretch of the imagination, and you can see that from the link you provided.
pnathan 14y ago
If you cursorily examine the history of anarchism, there are those who seek to achieve a violent revolution, and there are those who seek to achieve a peaceful revolution. It's of course reasonable to keep an eye on seditious groups: these almost by definition imperil life, liberty, property, etc. It is another thing altogether to keep an eye on someone who wants to peacefully change government via peaceful and lawful means.
scarmig 14y ago
Why should the government preemptively keep tabs on anyone? Should the EPA and HUD be able to place sleeper agents in right wing community organizations to monitor them? Should pro-secessionist historians have their phones bugged and be trailed because they don't believe in the legitimacy of the federal state? Aside from that general principle, there's also the reality of how its implemented. Most of the time sleeper agents are used to get evidence for trumped up, meaningless charges like "interstate travel with intent to riot." That's the best case scenario. At worst, these agents, on not finding something of even minor note, will attempt to incite violence to prove that "those anarchists have really been violent all along." See, for instance, Brandon Darby. Edited to add: I do, for the record, think that if there's actual evidence that someone's trying to blow up a bridge, monitoring is appropriate (though I don't see why simply arresting them wouldn't usually be sufficient if that were the case). But usually these things are more fishing expeditions than anything, against people whose ideology the State finds distasteful.
ejfox 14y ago
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
ojiikun 14y ago
All joking aside, because the government is created by the people to serve the people. It is not in the slightest sense the job of the government to sustain itself. That behaviour is the sole result of overpaid, power-hungry politicians who don't want to have to go find a real job.
- pnathan 14y ago
  > the government is created by the people to serve the people. Be careful, this is only true in certain countries. Sometimes governments are created by someone who is the best warlord & administrator, c.f., Charlemagne.
  - storborg 14y ago
    In this case it's clear that "the government" is short for "the US government".
- bbq 14y ago
  How can the government serve the people if it can't sustain itself?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    A government, if it is to serve the people, should only exist as long as the people will it. If the people present a democratic threat to the government, the government should fade from existence peacefully. If people present a non-democratic threat to the government, then the government should act to protect itself. Anarchists do not, categorically, present (or seek to present) a non-democratic threat to the democracy. Do you want to keep tabs on violent* anarchists? Knock yourself out. I have no particular issue with that.
  - chao- 14y ago
    The issue is not that of government is trying to preserve itself. This is a desirable outcome, if all else were equal. The issue is that, in this case preservation was given priority above other goals, among them preserving the right of people to freely associate.
jlgreco 14y ago
Not all anarchists are teenage rioters who just want to make trouble and listen to punk music. Hell, many (most?) are not even interested in an active (let alone violent...) overthrow, and are no more politically active than any other person of more mainstream political ideologies. What you are proposing is that the government spy on anyone who falls within a broad category of political classification. I think the issue with that should be self-evident.
- stusmall 14y ago
  I really love this quote on the idea: "Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights." - Kevin Carson To some anarchism is the idea of a completely voluntary society. A violent overthrow of the state is against this idea.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    That is a brilliant quote, thank you for it. It sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
_delirium 14y ago
If they're stockpiling bombs or something and actively working towards criminal activity, sure. I think monitoring of some anti-government groups who rise to that level, such as some groups within the American militia movement, or groups such as Revolutionary Struggle in Greece, is legitimate. But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read, without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate government, but I'm not sure owning The Fountainhead should land you on a watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin. It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  Rand was a minarchist, not an anarchist; in any case.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    True, maybe Murray Rothbard would've been a better example of a "right" anarchist than Rand.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Lest anyone forget, "keeping tabs on anarchists" would also mean spying on people who are more in line with people like Noam Chomsky. There is a huge spectrum of ideology and "danger" that is encompassed by "anarchist".
- ninetax 14y ago
  And is (peacefully) working to eliminate gov't illegal in and of it's self? Could congress vote to dissolve, or amend the constitution to massively reduce the size and scope of the gov't?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
SwellJoe 14y ago
Because they did nothing wrong. I am an anarchist (a market anarchist, specifically). It is my professed ideology. I don't break laws (well, maybe occasional acts of non-violent civil disobedience in protest of specific unjust laws), I pay my taxes, and I behave according to pretty high ethical standards. I wouldn't be surprised if there are files on me with the Austin Police Department, and DHS (via the Fusion Center here in Austin), because an organization I've been a part of has been infiltrated multiple times by undercover APD officers (and APD has, thankfully, been slapped around by judges for doing so, and for the way the officers behaved in the process). But, I'm not pleased about it, and I consider it a violation of basic civil liberties provided by the constitution...since I've never been arrested and never been charged with a crime. I am, by all reasonable standards, an upstanding citizen. Only if you believe holding a belief can be a crime, could you believe that I deserve to be spied on. I'm sure you hold some beliefs that others, including others in positions of power, consider wrong. Wanting to change (or dismantle peacefully) the government is not a crime. In short, it aint nobody's business what my ideology is. And, if you believe someone should be put in prison, in solitary, for holding an unpopular ideology...well, that's just not very American. Worse, it's not humanitarian.
nachteilig 14y ago
Because opposing the government peacefully is not a crime.

on a group whose professed ideology is the elimination of government Hmmm - yes, why not: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4 http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Reforming/#Item4

tsotha 14y ago
Doesn't apply.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  How so? Because they're old, rich, white "Republicans" rather than poor, young "anarchists"? Is it the very word "anarchist" that causes the difficulty, because that's what it looks like to me.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Because the Republicans are not proposing the elimination of government by any stretch of the imagination, and you can see that from the link you provided.

pnathan 14y ago

If you cursorily examine the history of anarchism, there are those who seek to achieve a violent revolution, and there are those who seek to achieve a peaceful revolution. It's of course reasonable to keep an eye on seditious groups: these almost by definition imperil life, liberty, property, etc. It is another thing altogether to keep an eye on someone who wants to peacefully change government via peaceful and lawful means.

scarmig 14y ago

Why should the government preemptively keep tabs on anyone? Should the EPA and HUD be able to place sleeper agents in right wing community organizations to monitor them? Should pro-secessionist historians have their phones bugged and be trailed because they don't believe in the legitimacy of the federal state? Aside from that general principle, there's also the reality of how its implemented. Most of the time sleeper agents are used to get evidence for trumped up, meaningless charges like "interstate travel with intent to riot." That's the best case scenario. At worst, these agents, on not finding something of even minor note, will attempt to incite violence to prove that "those anarchists have really been violent all along." See, for instance, Brandon Darby. Edited to add: I do, for the record, think that if there's actual evidence that someone's trying to blow up a bridge, monitoring is appropriate (though I don't see why simply arresting them wouldn't usually be sufficient if that were the case). But usually these things are more fishing expeditions than anything, against people whose ideology the State finds distasteful.

ejfox 14y ago

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

ojiikun 14y ago

All joking aside, because the government is created by the people to serve the people. It is not in the slightest sense the job of the government to sustain itself. That behaviour is the sole result of overpaid, power-hungry politicians who don't want to have to go find a real job.

pnathan 14y ago
> the government is created by the people to serve the people. Be careful, this is only true in certain countries. Sometimes governments are created by someone who is the best warlord & administrator, c.f., Charlemagne.
- storborg 14y ago
  In this case it's clear that "the government" is short for "the US government".
bbq 14y ago
How can the government serve the people if it can't sustain itself?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  A government, if it is to serve the people, should only exist as long as the people will it. If the people present a democratic threat to the government, the government should fade from existence peacefully. If people present a non-democratic threat to the government, then the government should act to protect itself. Anarchists do not, categorically, present (or seek to present) a non-democratic threat to the democracy. Do you want to keep tabs on violent* anarchists? Knock yourself out. I have no particular issue with that.
- chao- 14y ago
  The issue is not that of government is trying to preserve itself. This is a desirable outcome, if all else were equal. The issue is that, in this case preservation was given priority above other goals, among them preserving the right of people to freely associate.

jlgreco 14y ago

Not all anarchists are teenage rioters who just want to make trouble and listen to punk music. Hell, many (most?) are not even interested in an active (let alone violent...) overthrow, and are no more politically active than any other person of more mainstream political ideologies. What you are proposing is that the government spy on anyone who falls within a broad category of political classification. I think the issue with that should be self-evident.

stusmall 14y ago
I really love this quote on the idea: "Our aim is not to overthrow the state, but to ignore it. Anyone who wants to continue to support the state and obey its laws is free to do so, so long as they leave us alone. Our goal is to build the kind of society we want, and prevent the state from overthrowing us while we’re doing it. The last person out of the state can turn off the lights." - Kevin Carson To some anarchism is the idea of a completely voluntary society. A violent overthrow of the state is against this idea.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  That is a brilliant quote, thank you for it. It sums up my thoughts on the matter quite nicely.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

_delirium 14y ago

If they're stockpiling bombs or something and actively working towards criminal activity, sure. I think monitoring of some anti-government groups who rise to that level, such as some groups within the American militia movement, or groups such as Revolutionary Struggle in Greece, is legitimate. But I don't think that, in a free country, the government should be monitoring people solely for their political views or what kind of books they read, without some actual evidence that they're a danger to anyone. Sure, maybe someone who buys an Ayn Rand book will eventually work to eliminate government, but I'm not sure owning The Fountainhead should land you on a watchlist; and the same should go for reading Proudhon or Kropotkin. It's also really easy to run into false positives. In the '80s/'90s, for example, the police/media liked to paint a bunch of generally harmless BBSing kids as "dangerous anarchists" because they had an ASCII file of The Anarchist Cookbook—which is violent anarchist literature, after all.

sageikosa 14y ago
Rand was a minarchist, not an anarchist; in any case.
- _delirium 14y ago
  True, maybe Murray Rothbard would've been a better example of a "right" anarchist than Rand.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Lest anyone forget, "keeping tabs on anarchists" would also mean spying on people who are more in line with people like Noam Chomsky. There is a huge spectrum of ideology and "danger" that is encompassed by "anarchist".
ninetax 14y ago
And is (peacefully) working to eliminate gov't illegal in and of it's self? Could congress vote to dissolve, or amend the constitution to massively reduce the size and scope of the gov't?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

SwellJoe 14y ago

Because they did nothing wrong. I am an anarchist (a market anarchist, specifically). It is my professed ideology. I don't break laws (well, maybe occasional acts of non-violent civil disobedience in protest of specific unjust laws), I pay my taxes, and I behave according to pretty high ethical standards. I wouldn't be surprised if there are files on me with the Austin Police Department, and DHS (via the Fusion Center here in Austin), because an organization I've been a part of has been infiltrated multiple times by undercover APD officers (and APD has, thankfully, been slapped around by judges for doing so, and for the way the officers behaved in the process). But, I'm not pleased about it, and I consider it a violation of basic civil liberties provided by the constitution...since I've never been arrested and never been charged with a crime. I am, by all reasonable standards, an upstanding citizen. Only if you believe holding a belief can be a crime, could you believe that I deserve to be spied on. I'm sure you hold some beliefs that others, including others in positions of power, consider wrong. Wanting to change (or dismantle peacefully) the government is not a crime. In short, it aint nobody's business what my ideology is. And, if you believe someone should be put in prison, in solitary, for holding an unpopular ideology...well, that's just not very American. Worse, it's not humanitarian.

nachteilig 14y ago

Because opposing the government peacefully is not a crime.