I’m not going to fly into a rant about Anarchy in general. That would be a set of books the length of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Even encapsulated into a single treatise would be the length of War and Peace, yet with a great deal more death and destruction. No, for this piece I’m simply going to examine a single discussion which showed some inherent faults in anarchist ideology.
This will not be a comprehensive structure of analytical dissection: it’s a synopsis. Take it as you will. The discussion in question took place on minds, and the responses from the anarchist were fairly typical of what I have seen from their kind. That’s why I’m using it as an example. I was already tempted to write this as a response to the meme I saw shared across my news feed.
Now at the time I had that idea: I thought the response to the meme was too brief to post here so I was going to let it remain in the realm of minds.com: perhaps to be revisited at a later date and the initial response used as part of a larger structure of argumentation. that changed when the person who shared the meme, a self confessed (and in fact screen named) Anarchist, responded to my initial criticisms.
the conversation remained quite civil, to the anarchist’s credit. Most often they become quite irate, very quickly. During the course of the conversation, which was fairly brief, it was easily exposed – how he, an anarchist, responded with argumentation which required the existence of a central government (state). That’s where the conversation ends and it was that which I wanted to be thoroughly displayed here.
The ideology behind anarchism: breaks down and the anarchist must advocate for a state when faced with real life issues.
As always, and as I have stated in several other articles.
If your ideology is in conflict with reality – it is not reality which is wrong.
I think I’ll have that placed on my tombstone one day like Stefan Molyneux’s “Not an argument”. In any case, here is the initial meme which prompted my response.
Here was my response….
“Depends on who’s Morality. Without a central state to determine a system of laws: everyone’s mutually on the chopping block – innocent and guilty alike.
Allow me to explain the inherent flaw in the above statement: I shoot you in the face, take what I can from your corpse and move on. No authority, no rulers, no system of laws: I am not accountable to anyone for any reason. I’ll just do whatever I please, because I can, and I can get away with it.
People are easily ruled over, easily intimidated, easily put in their place. When I can openly walk up and simply shoot someone in the face, and my gun is already drawn – already out – already poised to pop anyone who so much as looks at me cross: who’s going to do anything about it?
It’s going to be nothing but the bystander effect.
In an Anarchist society: people who have no sense of remorse are only further unshackled from consequence.
Now… where do we see a society like that…. hmm…. Chicago.
(Also the Congo but Chicago’s closer to home and easier to get accurate data on).
This month alone: from July 1st to July 6th: 16 murders. These people are not being killed by the state, they are trading death for death based on endless reprisals because the police have largely stopped enforcing the law as a result of all the negative backlash faced by police as a result of black lives matter.
The result: inter city warfare between factions. As of now (7/9/17) Chicago has had 353 murders so far, again: just this year. 7 months. That’s an average of 50 a month. An average of 1.6 per day.
See… there’s ideology: and then there’s reality. Chicago is largely untouched by state enforcement of laws and as a result: factions of individuals are committing to geopolitical warfare over resources, territory and reprisal strikes.
Just like most of human history for the last 12,000 some odd years which we have records for.
Remember kids: if your ideology is in conflict with reality – it is not reality which is wrong.”
For future references: I don’t want any of the person’s quoted to be unduly targeted by third parties, so all the names will be removed. You know, a full on “The names have been changed to protect the innocent.” I don’t have to protect their anonymity, I just choose to.
Since this is my own website and I’m not misquoting anyone, I literally have the ability to post their minds ID’s and everything said. Without even potential legal repercussions because I quote them exactly – I can’t be accused of libel or slander. I just prefer to protect people’s relative anonymity unless I think they’re guilty of some legal or egregiously amoral activity.
It’s a personal policy. I also don’t like dog-piling in general. If I post something about someone, share it various places and then that person suddenly comes under fire from a lot of others: gives me a bad case o da feelz.
You’ve realllly gotta be one hell of a truly awful person for me to get that sense of righteous indignation which allows one to look on at someone being dogpiled and feel glee to watch. I’m not immune to the phenomena but it takes a good deal of wtfuckery or utter immorality for me to reach that state.
Otherwise I’m perfectly content to just argue my case and take someone one on one. Even when I was getting dogpiled for days by an SJW swarm, I didn’t tag anyone in or hashtag groups who would have been more than happy to step in on my side. I absolutely DID do a close up on the two shitbirds who started that swarm attack on me: because those two cretins were attempting to censor information and prevent people from knowing the truth about sexual abuse against children. THAT – will absolutely earn my ire in a bad way. Anyway, on with the show.
“what a completely bullshit statement”
“So you are in favor of immorality or at least making exceptions for some people so they can be immoral. Interesting.”
It’s a very typical leftist maneuver. Take something person a said, completely out of context and infer person A’s comments to mean things never touched on, insinuated or even remotely related to the assertions that the leftist is claiming person A made.
“Why do you persist in making stupid statements? Nothing I’ve posted here implies ANYTHING like you just posted. The flaw in your original meme post is that everyone defines morality as they see fit. It’s moral to break the banks windows because the banks are immoral and in the same vein it’s moral to shoot the glass breakers dead for the immoral act of destroying others property. It all comes down to who is defining immorality. Anarchy is NOT the answer to our world problems. Anarchy is death. Anarchy always leads to dictatorships that smash the Anarchist, with the publics blessing. Civilization requires agreed upon rules that we can live by, not some ever transient and individually decided set of morals/rules. Think again friend, your line of thinking endangers yourself and the world around you.”
“I see your line of thinking. You think it is moral to destroy the windows of banks that are immoral. Perhaps you also fear that everyone has their own idea of what is and is not moral and no authority to enforce anything. Your fears make every other idea stupid.”
Another typical leftist maneuver. Use moral relativism to promote the idea that all judgement is relative and that having any judgement insisted on as being correct makes you some form of extremist and thus this extremism can only come from fear / phobia / hatred. This is the premise they operate under when they throw words like “xenophobe”, “transphobe” and “islamophobe” around so flippantly.
Then I step into the active discussion.
“I know of no one who commits immoral acts for the sake of being immoral: observation of court cases for example – with the endless parade of excuses as to why someone should not be held accountable for their actions; is proof positive that everyone moralizes their actions.
Remember: Pedophiles love children.
They really do, it’s a true statement. Pedophiles love children: and in their minds – because they follow the trite, cliche that love should not be illegal, they are moral in their own minds. That is even the argument they make, “love should not be illegal.”
Heart Progress, for example.
Example @ JennyLover83, here on minds.
“What does the Pedosexual Pride flag means to me?
It means being proud of who I am no matter what. Being proud that I can accept myself and live my life in a way that will make me happy without the embarrassment and shame that so many live with. Being proud that I didn’t let the small mindedness of people box me into a life that I don’t belong in. Being proud that I am different and don’t just fade into the background.
#PedosexualPride #HeartProgress #AboveTheHate”
So, “Anarchist“, you do not get to frame Commentator 1’s objection as “fear” – because he did not state a fear. Commentator 1 stated an unavoidable observation of human nature. People moralize their own behavior in order to justify their own actions, to themselves and even to others.
Again I say “if your ideology is in conflict with reality – it is not reality which is wrong.”
“Sex is mutual and with consent otherwise it is immoral. Children cannot consent. Pedophiles do not love children, they prey on children and love having sex with children. It is not difficult to see the immorality. It matters not what excuse the pedophile believes is moral. The fact is there is a victim and any activity that creates a victim is…immoral. Your thoughts?”
“Sex is mutual and with consent otherwise it is immoral. Children cannot consent.” – They think children can consent, and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
“Pedophiles do not love children” – They think they do, and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
“they prey on children and love having sex with children.” – They think they love children, and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
“It is not difficult to see the immorality.” – Unless their sense of morality is different from yours, ANARCHIST, and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
“It matters not what excuse the pedophile believes is moral.” – That determination requires a higher authority and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
“The fact is there is a victim and any activity that creates a victim is…immoral.” = Unless they believe that children can consent, in which case there is no victimization: and with no moral or legal authority to determine otherwise – they’re only accountable to their own chosen moral imperatives.
Anarchist, your response REQUIRES the establishment of a higher moral and legal authority in order to set clearly defined rules and moral standards which society must follow. You have just advocated for the existence of the state, congratulations.
You know – you could always stop having blind faith in pretty sounding ideology and join us minarchists who are busy doing the hard work of advocating for limited government. Or you can blindly think you support the abolition of the state while so easily being provoked into flat faced admitting that in reality: a state is ultimately necessary.
But hey: you do you.
Far be it from me to try and save you from propagandic fair-tales. Some people just need a religion, secularist or otherwise.”
And yes, for future references, that post ended with that cat.
“I think you are arguing that if a pedophile believes his actions are moral, society should accept it as moral?”
“Quite opposite. *I* advocate for the existence of the state and a singular defined code of law. *YOU* are the anarchist: you think society can exist without a state and without a system of law enforced by a single authority.”
You are partially right in your accusations and assumptions. Anarchists DO believe in a code of law. We also believe that law enforcement does not need to be a state run monopoly.
“How exactly do you have a single, codified system of law: *without* a state to enforce it?
1, How will that law be defined?
2, Who gets to make that decision?
That requires either a dictator who sets the law or a consensus of society.
If you choose dictator: the conversation is over. So much for Anarchy.
If you claim a consensus of the society, I would inform you – that is called “democracy.” In which case you have a system of law based on the arbitrary opinions of a mob and whatever they decide goes.
If the mob decides so and so person should die, just because they don’t like him or her for whatever reason – that person dies. If the mob decides to rob from those in society who are productive just because they have wealth: no one with something to lose will want to live in your society. And if the mob decides that group X shouldn’t have the same rights as everyone else: they will not have those rights.
Welcome to segregation, or in fact: genocide.
“Anarchists DO believe in a code of law. We also believe that law enforcement does not need to be a state run monopoly.”
By that statement: the slaughter of the Tutsi’s was completely justified. The majority Hutu population did most of the killing, very little was done by the Rwandan state. A majority in the nation decided to kill off group X. The majority decides the law, the law can only be defined by that consensus of society, and they conducted the execution of the law that Tutsi’s must be killed wherever they are found. The populace then went to work carrying out that law, without the state monopoly playing a major role in the resulting carnage.
According to every single word, taken in context, of your statement: the Rwandan genocide was quintessentially a lawful act decided on by the society and carried out without the need of use of a state run monopoly.
“if your ideology is in conflict with reality – it is not reality which is wrong.”
“But hey: you do you.
Far be it from me to try and save you from propagandic fair-tales. Some people just need a religion, secularist or otherwise. “
Oh shit, it’s not working: the non leftist examined the provided defining characteristics and ideology of anarchy against real life. Quick: switch to the no true scotsman!
“What happened there was tragic and horrific. I hope you do not think that was anarchy. It was a corrupt state and CIA sponsored genocide.
Morality and democracy have nothing in common. 51% of the people should never be able to take away the rights of the other 49%. In fact 99% have no authority over 1%.
People should always have the ability to defend themselves against the initiation of force and even hire private security if need be. Every service can be privatized and a true free market can decide who provides the best service.”
Oh, don’t worry: he wasn’t even about to get away with that one.
“What happened there was tragic and horrific” – It was action decided on by the majority of the society (the Hutus), and conducted by the majority of that society (the Hutus). They didn’t consider it tragic or horrific. By the statements you made: it was a lawful act decided on and conducted by society without the use of a state run monopoly. I’m sure it was horrific and tragic, by Tutsi standards: but if it’s society which decides what is and is not moral, what is and is not just, and no individual has immutable rights: then the individual, or small group of them – are sacrificial to the society.
“I hope you do not think that was anarchy” – According to your statements: it was.
“It was a corrupt state and CIA sponsored genocide.” – the state did almost NOTHING about it for or against. they simply let the society, the majority population, do whatever it wanted to do. very few Tutsi’s were harmed by representatives of the state. the over whelming vast majority of Tutsi’s were butchered with machetes by mobs of Hutu’s.
“Morality and democracy have nothing in common. 51% of the people should never be able to take away the rights of the other 49%. In fact 99% have no authority over 1%.” – But if society makes the rules, they DO have those rights over others. The only way to prevent this is by codified law enforced by centralized government, a state. Otherwise your options are dictatorship or mob rule.
“People should always have the ability to defend themselves against the initiation of force and even hire private security if need be. Every service can be privatized and a true free market can decide who provides the best service.” – Until I have a disagreement with you. Then your private security firm has a conflict of interest regarding their representation of you with my private security firm who represents my interests. then all my private security firm has to do is kill your private security firm, or you, and I quite officially win whether I was right or not.
in which case, whoever has the biggest gang: wins. Otherwise known as…. wait for it….. mob rule.”
No. Creating a victim or initiating force is condemned. And such actions are not difficult to prove.
Your 2 questions are important.
If a community condones immoral behaviour such as slavery, rape, murder, fraud, and pedophilia, the conversion will certainly be protracted.
On the other hand, if morality is recognized and respected as a way of life there will always be the burden of eternal vigilance to maintain it.
The genocide that took place had a state in charge that did nothing and the people were defenseless by design. This immorality was created by the state. This was not anarchy.
“Creating a victim or initiating force is condemned. And such actions are not difficult to prove.” – Prove how? Squeezing a goats testicles? Divining the stars and someone’s birth time? A court of law requires a centralized government which follows a singularly defined and enforced code of law. This is why international courts and international law exists which are treatise agreed upon by multiple governments.
“If a community condones immoral behaviour such as slavery, rape, murder, fraud, and pedophilia, the conversion will certainly be protracted.” – If it’s society which makes the laws based on that society’s moral prerogatives – then those actions are not “immoral” to begin with.
Unless you’d like to advocate, as I do, for the concept of rights primus, inalienable rights, universal concepts and moral absolutes rather than amoral relativism and mob rule.
I say this because the list of immoralities you just rattled off: are condemned by MY side of this argument. The argument in favor of central governments which enforce a codified system of law that protects the rights of the individual as being sacrosanct. That’s MY side of this argument, and that’s what YOUR ideology: preaches against.
“On the other hand, if morality is recognized and respected as a way of life there will always be the burden of eternal vigilance to maintain it.” – By whom? A dictator’s thugs? Mob rule with pitch forks and torches? Religious zealots?
or… a central government which enforce a codified system of law that protects the rights of the individual as being sacrosanct?
“The genocide that took place had a state in charge that did nothing and the people were defenseless by design. This immorality was created by the state. This was not anarchy.” – Reiterating a no true Scotsman won’t change the facts of reality. You can look at a lead brick and say “This is gold” all you want, it won’t change color for you.
“the state did almost NOTHING about it for or against. they simply let the society, the majority population, do whatever it wanted to do. very few Tutsi’s were harmed by representatives of the state. the over whelming vast majority of Tutsi’s were butchered with machetes by mobs of Hutu’s. ”
“It was action decided on by the majority of the society (the Hutus), and conducted by the majority of that society (the Hutus). They didn’t consider it tragic or horrific. By the statements you made: it was a lawful act decided on and conducted by society without the use of a state run monopoly. I’m sure it was horrific and tragic, by Tutsi standards: but if it’s society which decides what is and is not moral, what is and is not just, and no individual has immutable rights: then the individual, or small group of them – are sacrificial to the society.”
To summarize the difference between Anarcho-Capitalists (AnCaps) and Libertarians (Minarchists), I provide you with the following meme. Save it and or share it if you would care to do so.
This is also why I do not associate with the Libertarian party in the United States.
The problem is that over half of the people calling themselves Libertarians: aren’t. That is to say their own lack of knowledge is causing the problem. They call themselves Libertarians: but instead – they’re Rothbardian anarcho capitalists.
Then you add in all the accompanying special snowflake varieties of “Libertarianism”. I’ve seen Socialist Libertarians and even Feminist Libertarians. Both of which are blatant contradictions as libertarianism is antithetical to authoritarianism.
Two types of “Libertarians”.
Locke, Bastiat, Voltaire or Nozick
Rothbard, Greenspan, Mauvillon or Faucher
Anarcho-Capitalists, otherwise known as “AnCaps” are not Libertarians, they’re AnCaps. It’s fine to be an AnCap, but far too few of them know the difference. It’s not a “No True Scotsman” if that was your initial response.
A no true scotsman forms around “No true scotsman would do X”, to which someone else responds “but so and so does” and the premise is reasserted “No true Scotsman would”. It’s also commonly used by the feminists when they exclaim “but those aren’t real feminists.” A no true scotsman is always used to exclude P from Q: it does not define what Q is.
I am directly stating what Q is and stipulating that X, R, N, and P are not Q unless they conform to Q. The “essence” of Libertarianism, to borrow an Aristotelian methodology for defining something: is Minarchy (limited government) plus classical liberalism as codified in the U.S. constitution and the declaration of independence combined with the non-aggression principle.
To deviate from that places you in a different subset of the political landscape, it’s not an identity: it’s a classification for a specific political philosophy.
In conclusion, I give you this meme. “Unicornist” – “Any adherent to an ideology which believes in a Utopian paradise with no regard to the reality of human history.”