7 ms·

Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible

by javert 13y ago

Anarchism is pure nonsense. There is literally no such thing as "no government." In a "state of nature," every government is size 1---you. You are responsible for retaliatory and initiatory force, and every interaction is foreign diplomacy with a gun behind it. From there, things can (and will) evolve so that there are larger governments, but you cannot get "no government."

agilebyte 13y ago
In Introduction to Anarchism, the author suggests that the future direction in anarchism could be to support local governments and having power on a local, rather than national level. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804774 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp...
- javert 13y ago
  Well, that would be highly devolved government, not anarchism, no? Shouldn't Chomsky avoid such confusing langauge? I'm no better off serving a local collective than a national collective.
  - agilebyte 13y ago
    The idea is that he does not speak for all anarchists, just like the idea in the book I read doesn't either.
    - javert 13y ago
      I'm not sure I get your point. He doesn't need to speak for all anarchists. He just needs to speak clearly. If he advocated "collectivism fully devolved to the local level" (which I think is what he advocates, right?) it would be much more clear, and he would not be peddling a contradiction. "Anarchism" contradicts with the thing I just described, which is still a government and/or power structure.
      - agilebyte 13y ago
        Yes you are right, it is better to speak clearly rather than apply too general and broad labels.
seanccox 13y ago
"Pure nonsense"... is that your educated critique, or are you just trolling to make space for a straw man argument? Because I get the sense that you haven't read enough about anarchism if you think it constitutes 'no government'.
- javert 13y ago
  Maybe you are actually pointing out a misunderstanding I have. I thought "anarchism" meant "no government." If it doesn't, why don't anarchists use a different term? Can you think of a more descriptive term? It is certainly the case that anarcho-capitalists are for "no government."
  - klez 13y ago
    Because anarchism was defined in the late 1800's, anarcho-capitalism is a definition of Rothbard, made on an unpublished note in 1949. So why should anarcho-capitalsts dictate what 'anarchy' means, especially when the ethymological sense is 'absence of regulating principle' and not 'absence of state'? EDIT: corrected year of unpublished Rothbard note
SwellJoe 13y ago
So, you have no knowledge of the philosophy of anarchism (not even the amount of knowledge you would have gained from actually watching the video linked), but feel both empowered to dismiss it, and capable of explaining what it means.
- javert 13y ago
  People keep telling me to watch videos like this, and it never resolves the contradiction. I can't watch them all. However, the interesting thing is that you can't (or haven't) pointed out any contradiction in what I said. If what I said is wrong, you should be able to correct me quite easily.
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    I'm not telling you to watch the video. I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism, you should probably not feel empowered to speak so confidently on what it means or its value. The Dunning-Kruger effect may be worth reading about, in this instance. Your lack of knowledge seems to be leading you to a false sense of confidence in your words and beliefs. I wasn't looking to argue with you the merits of anarchism vs. whatever you believe is more correct. I was, instead, looking to point out that you have a level of ignorance about anarchism (not even knowing what the word means) that should preclude you from speaking about it, except in the form of questions. I believe this sort of approach applies to any subject, not just anarchism. I don't find your dismissive tone conducive to the level of discussion I expect from HN. I want to encourage you to be a better contributor to HN, not convince you to be an anarchist.
    - javert 13y ago
      If you go back and look at my comment history, I think you will see that I engage with people in a thorough, honest, and often self-critical way. I don't think your Dunning-Kruger idea is actually plausible. Are you thinking of that based on this one post, or do you remember me from other discussions? Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments. > I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it. That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government. Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism. I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean. I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.
anoncowherd 13y ago
Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?
- ryanbrunner 13y ago
  There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power. Social contract theory, to name one. You may not agree with it, but the possibility of a justifiable centralization of power can at least be argued.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be? But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing. For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding. Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Sounds much like the system of property.
      - anoncowherd 13y ago
        What does?
jheriko 13y ago
That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know... Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.
- tokenizer 13y ago
  Again, this is about the political theory of anarchism not the mainstream definition connoting chaos. Thanks for championing debate against your parent post, but to say they make an accurate description of a philosophy that challenged Franco in Catalonia, is one of the most anti-war philosophies out there, AND one of the only political philosophies that don't agree with our current structural narratives and attempts to offer solutions, is also doing it an injustice.
  - jheriko 13y ago
    i do think that in a pedantic way he is right - you can never do away with government if you define it in that way. i'm just not sure what the value of such an observation is...
    - tokenizer 13y ago
      I think there's an important distinction to make between governance and government. One being the actions that govern things, the other being an institution with monopoly on violence and tax revenue. I think this kid says it all best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q So to me a government isn't just one person, nor is it a small collective. Any other form of socialism or large scale governance that isn't based on confederation in the loosest sense with small collectives respecting each others differences, simply has too much power IMO.
- nailer 13y ago
  > You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? I'm not the OP but it seemed clear to me. Right now governments conflict with each other using guns (and missiles, and drones, etc), if/when diplomacy fails. If the law is the law of the individual, then each individual would be obligated to have his own 'defence department' if/when diplomacy fails.

by javert 13y ago

agilebyte 13y ago

In Introduction to Anarchism, the author suggests that the future direction in anarchism could be to support local governments and having power on a local, rather than national level. http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0192804774 http://www.amazon.com/Anarchism-A-Very-Short-Introduction/dp...

javert 13y ago
Well, that would be highly devolved government, not anarchism, no? Shouldn't Chomsky avoid such confusing langauge? I'm no better off serving a local collective than a national collective.
- agilebyte 13y ago
  The idea is that he does not speak for all anarchists, just like the idea in the book I read doesn't either.
  - javert 13y ago
    I'm not sure I get your point. He doesn't need to speak for all anarchists. He just needs to speak clearly. If he advocated "collectivism fully devolved to the local level" (which I think is what he advocates, right?) it would be much more clear, and he would not be peddling a contradiction. "Anarchism" contradicts with the thing I just described, which is still a government and/or power structure.
    - agilebyte 13y ago
      Yes you are right, it is better to speak clearly rather than apply too general and broad labels.

seanccox 13y ago

"Pure nonsense"... is that your educated critique, or are you just trolling to make space for a straw man argument? Because I get the sense that you haven't read enough about anarchism if you think it constitutes 'no government'.

javert 13y ago
Maybe you are actually pointing out a misunderstanding I have. I thought "anarchism" meant "no government." If it doesn't, why don't anarchists use a different term? Can you think of a more descriptive term? It is certainly the case that anarcho-capitalists are for "no government."
- klez 13y ago
  Because anarchism was defined in the late 1800's, anarcho-capitalism is a definition of Rothbard, made on an unpublished note in 1949. So why should anarcho-capitalsts dictate what 'anarchy' means, especially when the ethymological sense is 'absence of regulating principle' and not 'absence of state'? EDIT: corrected year of unpublished Rothbard note

SwellJoe 13y ago

So, you have no knowledge of the philosophy of anarchism (not even the amount of knowledge you would have gained from actually watching the video linked), but feel both empowered to dismiss it, and capable of explaining what it means.

javert 13y ago
People keep telling me to watch videos like this, and it never resolves the contradiction. I can't watch them all. However, the interesting thing is that you can't (or haven't) pointed out any contradiction in what I said. If what I said is wrong, you should be able to correct me quite easily.
- SwellJoe 13y ago
  I'm not telling you to watch the video. I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism, you should probably not feel empowered to speak so confidently on what it means or its value. The Dunning-Kruger effect may be worth reading about, in this instance. Your lack of knowledge seems to be leading you to a false sense of confidence in your words and beliefs. I wasn't looking to argue with you the merits of anarchism vs. whatever you believe is more correct. I was, instead, looking to point out that you have a level of ignorance about anarchism (not even knowing what the word means) that should preclude you from speaking about it, except in the form of questions. I believe this sort of approach applies to any subject, not just anarchism. I don't find your dismissive tone conducive to the level of discussion I expect from HN. I want to encourage you to be a better contributor to HN, not convince you to be an anarchist.
  - javert 13y ago
    If you go back and look at my comment history, I think you will see that I engage with people in a thorough, honest, and often self-critical way. I don't think your Dunning-Kruger idea is actually plausible. Are you thinking of that based on this one post, or do you remember me from other discussions? Anyway, I do make pithy comments that are not intellectually thorough from time to time. And if you were to look at my post history, I'm sure you'd find some things that I wouldn't be proud of. But in general, I don't try to "win" arguments; I try to learn, and I try to help others learn, which requires connecting to their current context of knowledge, not just making hand-wavy arguments. > I'm suggesting that when you understand something as little as you seem to understand the philosophy of anarchism The word means "without power" or "without government." So I'm not sure why you say I misunderstand it. That said, I do think many "anarchists" actually mean something else. For instance, from what I can tell (and please correct me if I am wrong--I'm not at all certain), Chomsky is actually advocating devolved communalism, which is a form of coercive government. For some reason, he wants to call that "anarchism." I want to call him on that. I don't think it's right to take the word "anarchism" and have it mean local communalistic government. Maybe when you say I don't understand "anarchism," it's because I interpret it to mean "without power," and you interpret it to mean some kind of devolved communalism. I have talked to anarcho-syndicalists and they claim that there is no government and no force. Oh, except yes, the syndicate exercises police power and taxes people and decides on wealth distribution. And if you don't like the syndicate, you can go join a new one. Well, guess what? That is government. It is not anarchy, except if "anarchy" does not mean what its Greek root words mean. I agree with "anarchy" as anarcho-capitalists describe it, but I just don't think it would be stable for more than 5 minutes. That is precisely the thing I was pointing out in my comment.

anoncowherd 13y ago

Your profile looks like you're an objectivist. But as others pointed out, you can't just dismiss anarchism off-hand. As an objectivist, you're against coercion, but in favour of centralized power? Is that correct? If so, don't you think it's a contradictory idea?

ryanbrunner 13y ago
There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power. Social contract theory, to name one. You may not agree with it, but the possibility of a justifiable centralization of power can at least be argued.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> There's a large body of literature that attempts to justify centralization of power Of course there is. We've lived under centralized power for hundreds or thousands of years, after all. Why would The Powers That Be suddenly cease wanting to Be? But centralized power cannot be justified, it can only be rationalized. If you think about the idea of the social contract for a moment, you should realize that it's not a contract at all, but merely a shackle for our minds, to keep us from finding a way out of the maze of our brainwashing. For starters, you were never even asked, you never had a chance not to participate, and you can't just opt out of the system either. You're either inside a country, or you're freezing to death in Antarctica. It's not much of a choice, but a voluntary choice is necessary for any contract to be binding. Read this: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Sounds much like the system of property.
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      What does?

jheriko 13y ago

That is a most accurate observation, but what does it add to the discussion? You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? We aren't all americans you know... Also, I don't understand the negativity, did you notice the sprawl of civilisation around you? That came from anarchy... its proven to work in some sense.

tokenizer 13y ago
Again, this is about the political theory of anarchism not the mainstream definition connoting chaos. Thanks for championing debate against your parent post, but to say they make an accurate description of a philosophy that challenged Franco in Catalonia, is one of the most anti-war philosophies out there, AND one of the only political philosophies that don't agree with our current structural narratives and attempts to offer solutions, is also doing it an injustice.
- jheriko 13y ago
  i do think that in a pedantic way he is right - you can never do away with government if you define it in that way. i'm just not sure what the value of such an observation is...
  - tokenizer 13y ago
    I think there's an important distinction to make between governance and government. One being the actions that govern things, the other being an institution with monopoly on violence and tax revenue. I think this kid says it all best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8jUxg81o8Q So to me a government isn't just one person, nor is it a small collective. Any other form of socialism or large scale governance that isn't based on confederation in the loosest sense with small collectives respecting each others differences, simply has too much power IMO.
nailer 13y ago
> You have some implicit assumptions about anarchy there... why would there be guns? I'm not the OP but it seemed clear to me. Right now governments conflict with each other using guns (and missiles, and drones, etc), if/when diplomacy fails. If the law is the law of the individual, then each individual would be obligated to have his own 'defence department' if/when diplomacy fails.