"The case against individualist anarchism" by Shayne Wessler

[Autolykos]

Centinel, do you really think anyone around here is actually buying into your constant arguments from ignorance?

[vive_la_insurrection]

I may be comming to the rapid conclusion that there should be a case againt individualist anarchism, as well as all political labels. I think they are absolute jokes and confused languages.

Qualifier: Whatever the social apparatus is in power (be it democracy, military, custom, whatever), bands can come together to try and get a piece of that power and asserting their will by utilizing the system in place…So you could have the Ceaserian party to conquer rome vs the Lepdius or Antonian party. Other than that broad ideological speculative labels are gibberish, especially if you have no actual power to the facts on hand.

The structure of the environment is what is. A political label that avoids all dealings with current power structures, and throws up a speculative societies, norms, customs, laws, etc is an empty label…so yeah, individualist anarchism is a joke. Why are you an individualist anarchist, communist, or whatever…what are you doing, what are you saying?

[Autolykos]

William, why are you so concerned about what people choose to label themselves by?

Furthermore, what’s wrong with avoiding all dealings with current power structures on a political basis? What’s wrong with “[throwing up] speculative societies, norms, customs, laws, etc.”? None of us knows what the future holds, but I don’t see how that precludes speculation. Why are you so offended by others speculating on these things to the point of constantly trying to get them to shut up?

[vive_la_insurrection]

William, why are you so concerned about what people choose to label themselves by?

If I get time, and that is a big if, I may write about it to collect my thoughts. My over all position right now is that, at least in some sense - nothing is being said. I am pretty serious about this thought right now, so hopefully I can get around to this. All that matters is what exists, and the description of the mechanisms of power that exist, everything else is like some “Christian” Progressive utopia type language. What is all this “for” and “against” stuff that I have no power over - I don’t think I understand it.

[Autolykos]

@vive la insurrection

If I get time, and that is a big if, I may write about it to collect my thoughts. My over all position right now is that, at least in some sense - nothing is being said. I am pretty serious about this thought right now, so hopefully I can get around to this. All that matters is what exists, and the description of the mechanisms of power that exist, everything else is like some “Christian” Progressive utopia type language. What is all this “for” and “against” stuff that I have no power over - I don’t think I understand it.

If all that matters is what exists, then any/all normativity is irrelevant. So none of us can talk about what is good or bad, right or wrong, pleasing or displeasing, as those things don’t exist, not even as concepts in our minds apparently.

“For” and “against” are applicable to economics, aren’t they? I can be for spending $5 on a movie ticket and against spending that $5 on a beer.

[Charles_Anthony]

@.500NE

Every known hunter-gatherer tribe has a hierarchy. There is a leader or headman of some kind, and there are cultural & social mores and taboos that the members are expected to live by.

Please correct me if I am wrong, (and I’m sure people will), but from what I understand an Anarchistic society is one where there is no identifiable hierarchy, or no one individual or group is designated as a “leader”.

You are wrong. The hierarchy does not preclude anarchy.

If the members are free to leave the tribe whenever they want, then the hierarchy is perfectly in harmony with anarchy.

[vive_la_insurrection]

“For” and “against” are applicable to economics, aren’t they? I can be for spending $5 on a movie ticket and against spending that $5 on a beer.

In a sense, no. Laws are determined by facts, and everything that exists is an atomic fact in itself. When I “buy a beer”, I simply buy a beer as the thing I do for what it is, not a non beer - I don’t think a dilectic works here. I think the word “choice” is more or less used to indicate the fact that the actor is “irrational” in the traditionally empiricle sense of the word.

So none of us can talk about what is good or bad, right or wrong, pleasing or displeasing, as those things don’t exist, not even as concepts in our minds apparently.

You can talk about them all you want, but they are only one fact, in a potentially infinite number of combinations that factor into something. In this way they are just “words” as facts in themselves as opposed to the other billions upon billions of facts that present themselves that take place in the actual world that can be spoken of (the world of human action). The perspectives and expectations (and expectations are something that I am starting to take very seriously) that are involved can not be talked about as anything more than any other atomic fact you wish to categorize that manifests, all propositions being of equal value.

Moreover, I have no idea what either one’s perspective or expectation of what is meant when they say good, it is impossible for me to determine. All I can do is look at how material itsef in the factual world. Our world is not the world of good or bad, but of human action.

[500NE]

@Autolykos

I’m sorry but I think your phrase “the big decisions” is really vague. For example, Steve Jobs makes big decisions for Apple. Does that make him a leader, in your view? Why or why not? If it does, would you say he’s the same kind of leader as, say, Barack Obama?

Yes Jobs is a leader, he makes certain decisions and people follow them. While mostly voluntary (because people mostly seem to like having a good job) he can probably fire those who disagree with and oppose him under certain conditions.

Obama is a much more powerful leader because he can bring a whole lot more force to bear when he makes decisions.

@Autolykos

The operative word there, I believe, is “few”. How many people are there in Congress alone? How many do you see as actually being good people?

You might again be surprised, but I’d actually say I’m in favor of “limited government”. What I mean by that is I’m in favor of minimizing those things that people think can be legitimately dealt with by force. Something tells me that you’re in favor of this as well. The question now is, which means do we think would most likely achieve this end?

I partially agree with Centinel that a few of our founding fathers wanted to create a “cage” for Statism. But I disagree that the US government, then and now, is anywhere near a good example of that cage.

There are minarchist elements in the U.S. government and others that we can look to and judge their effectiveness. And certain things like the bill of rights have generally worked. I think that they would work better if they were in a true minarchist framework, but that is opinion at this point.

I am in favor of some anarchist ideas, although I may not currently agree with the end goal – they have some good ideas for decentralizing government. And they point out legitimate abuses that need correction. (if possible)

My idea of a limited Gov is one that is very limited. They’d just run the military – local law enforcement would be contracted out as much as possible. Stuff like bridges and certain freeways would be privatized and tolled. A very low single-digit tax, etc.

Of course the biggest factor in making any society work would be the type of culture and ethics, mores, and taboos held by the vast majority of that society.

@Autolykos

Sorry, I guess I should’ve included a link to the Wikipedia article on arguments from ignorance. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. It involves asserting the notion that, because a given proposition hasn’t been proven false, therefore it must (logically speaking) be true. This does not follow because, as Carl Sagan famously put it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also think the argument from ignorance applies to more general cases where people try to use empirical evidence (or lack thereof) as logical proof.

Ahh, you can’t prove a negative fallacy - mea culpa… I will try to be more specific when something is my opinion only.

@Autolykos

You did write “won’t” in your earlier post. I was simply pointing out that “the jury is still out” on whether an anarchist society would or would not necessarily and inevitably fall to an outside invasion from a more organized group that doesn’t recognize their “natural” rights.

There is nothing that can absolutely prove that an anarchistic society won’t be possible. You are correct that “the jury is still out” I completely concede this point.

But I also can’t prove that big-foot doesn’t exist either.

Like big-foot skeptics, I feel the burden of proof when it comes to an anarchistic society falls almost entirely on its advocates to prove their point.

I think that there are no issues in showing that “anarchism” is a natural extension or their personal philosophy.

It’s the practical application of the absolutely stateless society, where I think that a whole lot of assumptions of how people will act come into play.

@Autolykos

As James (I believe) wrote in the “Nationalism or World Government?” thread, it actually seems more difficult to conquer a stateless society than to conquer one that’s rule by a state. After all, a stateless society has no single ruling hierarchy that can be replaced and which people are used to obeying.

How would you identify a “stateless” society? A short one sentence example – or historical reference would be fine…

Part of our/my problem is that we may not be using certain terms to mean the same thing here. Or we may even disagree on how certain terms are used.

@Autolykos

Okay. How about the Articles of Confederation? Would you say that it was minarchist?

Nope. It was just a document of confederation for 13 independent states, no supremacy clause, no compulsory taxation. And no ability to keep the promises made to its soldiers. The 13 colonies could still get as “statist” as they wanted.

I view “minarchy” as kind of a package deal. You don’t just get to implement a few elements and get to call yourself minarchist.

.

[500NE]

If the members are free to leave the tribe whenever they want, then the hierarchy is perfectly in harmony with anarchy.

So if you can leave the state anytime you want then the state is perfectly in harmony with anarchy. Yes?

[500NE]

I think I basically get what you are saying - businesses and and such all have hierarchys.

You just don’t want a hierarchy that comes under the heading of “government”.

[skylercollins]

Define “leave”. When he said leave the tribe, I believe he meant disassociate with them, not necessarily moving away. You can’t disassociate from the state without moving away (and sometimes not even then ^_^).

[Autolykos]

@vive la insurrection

In a sense, no. Laws are determined by facts, and everything that exists is an atomic fact in itself. When I “buy a beer”, I simply buy a beer as the thing I do for what it is, not a non beer - I don’t think a dilectic works here. I think the word “choice” is more or less used to indicate the fact that the actor is “irrational” in the traditionally empiricle sense of the word.

I don’t really understand what this is supposed to mean. As a best guess, it seems like you’re foregoing the Austrian Economics notion of actions revealing the preferences of the actors.

On the other hand, just because praxeology is a science of action does not mean that preferences don’t exist. It just means that they’re considered to be outside of the scope of praxeology.

@vive la insurrection

You can talk about them all you want, but they are only one fact, in a potentially infinite number of combinations that factor into something. In this way they are just “words” as facts in themselves as opposed to the other billions upon billions of facts that present themselves that take place in the actual world that can be spoken of (the world of human action). The perspectives and expectations (and expectations are something that I am starting to take very seriously) that are involved can not be talked about as anything more than any other atomic fact you wish to categorize that manifests, all propositions being of equal value.

I don’t consider “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”, “pleasing” or “displeasing” as facts at all. There is no truth in saying “X is good/bad/right/wrong/pleasing/displeasing”. That is, there are no facts or truth/falsehood about values. But that doesn’t prevent me from saying that I think X is good/bad/right/wrong/pleasing/displeasing/etc.

@vive la insurrection

Moreover, I have no idea what either one’s perspective or expectation of what is meant when they say good, it is impossible for me to determine. All I can do is look at how material itsef in the factual world. Our world is not the world of good or bad, but of human action.

Yet you talk about opposing political labels. So you are dealing with more than human action.

[Autolykos]

@.500NE

Yes Jobs is a leader, he makes certain decisions and people follow them. While mostly voluntary (because people mostly seem to like having a good job) he can probably fire those who disagree with and oppose him under certain conditions.

Obama is a much more powerful leader because he can bring a whole lot more force to bear when he makes decisions.

It’s not just a matter of amount - it’s also a matter of kind*.* Does Steve Jobs kick his employees out of their homes when they disagree with his decisions? No. He simply doesn’t want them to work for him anymore, so he refuses to pay them anymore. If they still show up at work, of course, he could consider them to be trespassing. Why is that? Because Steve Jobs makes a distinction between Apple’s property and other people’s/groups’ property.

Let me ask you this: do you consider the US government to actually own the entire country?

@.500NE

I partially agree with Centinel that a few of our founding fathers wanted to create a “cage” for Statism. But I disagree that the US government, then and now, is anywhere near a good example of that cage.

Of course, the validity of that statement depends on how you define “statism”. How do you (personally) define it?

@.500NE

There are minarchist elements in the U.S. government and others that we can look to and judge their effectiveness. And certain things like the bill of rights have generally worked. I think that they would work better if they were in a true minarchist framework, but that is opinion at this point.

How would you say that the Bill of Rights has “generally worked”? What would you call a “true minarchist framework”?

@.500NE

I am in favor of some anarchist ideas, although I may not currently agree with the end goal – they have some good ideas for decentralizing government. And they point out legitimate abuses that need correction. (if possible)

Doesn’t decentralizing government just increase the number of centers (monopolies)? Or do you think there’s more to it than that?

@.500NE

My idea of a limited Gov is one that is very limited. They’d just run the military – local law enforcement would be contracted out as much as possible. Stuff like bridges and certain freeways would be privatized and tolled. A very low single-digit tax, etc.

Would this limited government necessarily cover the same territory as the current United States? Why or why not?

Why would only certain freeways be provitaized and tolled? Do you think a government that still controls some (many?) roads to be a very limited government?

“Local law enforcement” implies local laws. Would there be any limitation on the scope of such? How would that be enforced?

Finally, why do you think “national defense” must be monopolized?

@.500NE

Of course the biggest factor in making any society work would be the type of culture and ethics, mores, and taboos held by the vast majority of that society.

Do you think those things can ever be changed by non-violent methods (such as persuasive argument)? Or do you think we can only take them as given?

@.500NE

Ahh, you can’t prove a negative fallacy - mea culpa… I will try to be more specific when something is my opinion only.

Thank you.

@.500NE

There is nothing that can absolutely prove that an anarchistic society won’t be possible. You are correct that “the jury is still out” I completely concede this point.

But I also can’t prove that big-foot doesn’t exist either.

Like big-foot skeptics, I feel the burden of proof when it comes to an anarchistic society falls almost entirely on its advocates to prove their point.

If “the jury is still out” on the feasibility of an anarchist society, then where can there be any burden of proof in this regard? At the most, we can only talk about a burden of evidence here. But there’s a difference between the question of whether “Big Foot” could exist (i.e. the possibility of “Big Foot” existing) and whether “Big Foot” does exist. Has the existence of “Big Foot” been proven impossible? As far as I know, it hasn’t.

Claiming that something is impossible is a stronger claim than claiming that it’s possible. If you want to talk about feasibility or workability, that’s another matter. In that case, I’d like you to provide your standards for feasbility/workability.

@.500NE

I think that there are no issues in showing that “anarchism” is a natural extension or their personal philosophy.

It’s the practical application of the absolutely stateless society, where I think that a whole lot of assumptions of how people will act come into play.

Neither one of us knows how anyone, let alone everyone, in some future stateless society will act. What we can do is study human nature and (try to) formulate categorical (and thus timeless) propositions from it. I don’t think human nature is infinitely flexible - do you?

@.500NE

How would you identify a “stateless” society? A short one sentence example – or historical reference would be fine…

Right now, I’d say I’d identify it as a lack of institutionalized aggression over a given area of land and/or group of people.

@.500NE

Part of our/my problem is that we may not be using certain terms to mean the same thing here. Or we may even disagree on how certain terms are used.

Indeed. That’s why I ask you for your definitions of certain words.

@.500NE

Nope. It was just a document of confederation for 13 independent states, no supremacy clause, no compulsory taxation. And no ability to keep the promises made to its soldiers. The 13 colonies could still get as “statist” as they wanted.

I view “minarchy” as kind of a package deal. You don’t just get to implement a few elements and get to call yourself minarchist.

Okay. In that case, I think you’re talking about an “ultimate” authority which can somehow provide limited government. But the other governments of the world can still get as “statist” as they want, right? So it seems that you must logically favor centralization of government over decentralization. Or are you only concerned with what you perceive as “the American nation”?

[Autolykos]

@.500NE

So if you can leave the state anytime you want then the state is perfectly in harmony with anarchy. Yes?

Along what Skyler Collins wrote, either the state is a voluntary association of people - in which case one can simply stop associating whenever he wants - or the state is the owner of property on which those people reside - in which case one must leave the property if he wants to stop associating with the state. Which do you think is the case today?

[Caley_McKibbin]

You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper…

[500NE]

Today, you need to sell all your non-mobile assets and move out to opt out. But even in a voluntary society there couldn’t be an infinite array of choices/services to perfectly satisfy everyone.. at some point it might be more worth your while to sell out and move to a better area reather than select from the options in one’s current area.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@Caley McKibbin

You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper…

That’s what I figured after he stopped capitalizing the first letter of the first word of every sentence.

[Laughing_Man]

“You do realize that Centinel is Rettoper…”

Wasn’t he the guy who I banned and deleted? Now he is making other usernames and trolling by redundent logical fallacies?

I think I get a cookie for far-reaching insight.

[Autolykos]

@.500NE

Today, you need to sell all your non-mobile assets and move out to opt out. But even in a voluntary society there couldn’t be an infinite array of choices/services to perfectly satisfy everyone.. at some point it might be more worth your while to sell out and move to a better area reather than select from the options in one’s current area.

The point is that you’re not going to be kicked off of your own property if you choose not to form any contractual arrangements with others, or if you choose to legitimately break the ones you do have. Of course, that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences to your actions, but those consequences will be entirely of your own doing. It’s not like anyone is unilaterally imposing positive obligations on you. That’s what governments do.

By the way, did you happen to see my other, longer post?

[500NE]

Sorry for the late reply – real life triumphs internet banter…

**

@Autolykos

It’s not just a matter of amount - it’s also a matter of** kind. **Does Steve Jobs kick his employees out of their homes when they disagree with his decisions? No. He simply doesn’t want them to work for him anymore, so he refuses to pay them anymore. If they still show up at work, of course, he could consider them to be trespassing. Why is that? Because Steve Jobs makes a distinction between Apple’s property and other people’s/groups’ property.

**

To me amount and kind go hand in hand. The more power you get the more kinds of things you can exert control over. And the opposite holds true as well.

If Steve Jobs became president , he’d get more power which allows him to do all kinds of stuff he couldn’t do as ceo of apple. Because the power of a ceo is far less than the power of a president. Now because of our political system he can’t be a ceo and president at the same time. He has to decide which venue of power he wishes to pursue. But he only has to make that decision because of the laws of our country.

And there were some very powerful companies back in the day that owned whole towns and could kick you out of your house if you got fired…

**

@Autolykos

Let me ask you this: do you consider the US government to** actually own **the entire country?

**

Basically –yes they do. You don’t pay property taxes – you lose what you “own”. Your land is bound by a tax you MUST pay to the state. So you do not really own it.

Now if your land is not bound by a tax or eminent domain clause. The government falls into having more of a “dominion” role. In that you are only bound by the laws governing personal behavior. But if you don’t like those laws and want to break away – you’re gonna have to sell your stuff and move. I realize some would not consider anything less than pure voluntarism to be ownership though.

**

@Autolykos

Of course, the validity of that statement depends on how you define “statism”. How do you (personally) define it?

**

An exclusive area claimed by a group of people who got together and decided that they were going to band together for protection and made some universal rules to live by based on their common cultural mores and values.

**

@Autolykos

How would you say that the Bill of Rights has “generally worked”? What would you call a “true minarchist framework”?

**

Well, if certain amendments hadn’t been incorporated to the state level then citizens in certain states would be enjoying far less individual liberty than they are now.

A minarchist frame work would be a constitution that sets up a minimalist night-watchmen state that protects individual freedoms that a given culture deems important.

**

@Autolykos

Would this limited government necessarily cover the same territory as the current United States? Why or why not?

**

I see no reason why a Minarchy couldn’t cover the same area as the current USA. I don’t think that just because the role of a government has shrunk that would preclude it from holding sway over a large area.

**

@Autolykos

Why would only** certain **freeways be provitaized and tolled? Do you think a government that still controls some (many?) roads to be a very limited government?

**

Any government that has police and military & fire departments will create roads to ensure swift movement. And they will have a hard time telling the population at large that they can’t use the roads that their tax dollars built.

But there are certain high maintenance areas that the Gov can privatise so that they don’t have to micro manage everything. Stuff like bridges and select expressways may just be more convenient and cost saving to privatise.

And there is no reason private companies can’t make roads, where they see a demand, and profit from it if they can.

**

@Autolykos

“Local law enforcement” implies local laws. Would there be any limitation on the scope of such? How would that be enforced?

**

I’d imagine it’sd be similar to how communities nowdays in the US are able to pass local and state laws

**

@Autolykos

Finally, why do you think “national defense” must be monopolized?

**

While the use of mercenaries in the short term can be spectacularly effective, In the long run I think that history has shown that being guarded by those who are in it exclusively for profit can end badly in many ways.

And history is also replete with examples of decentralised military coalitions being trampled by a centralised professional force.

**

@Autolykos

Do you think those things can ever be changed by non-violent methods (such as persuasive argument)? Or do you think we can only take them as given?

**

Things can be changed by non-violent methods. Persuasive arguments, persistent arguments, and making enough noise that it is easier for others to give in than stand up, are all ways societies can change without violence.

**

@Autolykos

If “the jury is still out” on the feasibility of an anarchist society, then where can there be** any burden of proof in this regard? At the most, we can only talk about a burden of evidence here. But there’s a difference between the question of whether “Big Foot” could exist (i.e. the possibility of “Big Foot” existing) and whether “Big Foot” does exist. Has the existence of “Big Foot” been proven impossible? **As far as I know, it hasn’t.

**

It hasn’t been proven impossible. But in my opinion, common sense is strongly against the possibility. Our country has been gone through backwards and forwards by explorers, scientists, and citizens of every kind. Our current knowledge of the continents flora & fauna, while not disproving bigfoot absolutely, make an overwhelming circumstantial case against the likely hood of the possibility of his existence.

In my opinion the same logic can be applied to an Anarchistic society as preached on these boards. I believe human nature and history make a very strong circumstantial case against the likely hood of it working.

Not that one couldn’t give it a try – but in my opinion it just wouldn’t last.

**

@Autolykos

Neither one of us** knows **how anyone, let alone everyone, in some future stateless society will act. What we can do is study human nature and (try to) formulate categorical (and thus timeless) propositions from it. I don’t think human nature is infinitely flexible - do you?

**

I agree with you completely about human nature. And that is the main reason I don’t believe anarchy will work. History is one big slideshow of people setting up some form of government after government.

**

@Autolykos

Right now, I’d say I’d identify it as a lack of institutionalized aggression over a given area of land and/or group of people.

**

Even hunter gatherer groups like the African bushman and American plains Indians had “traditional” hunting areas that they would “defend” against outsiders. Smacks of institutionalized aggression to me…

One would have to show me some very specific examples for me to believe that a truly voluntary society has existed in history.

**

@Autolykos

Okay. In that case, I think you’re talking about an “ultimate” authority which can somehow provide limited government. But the other governments of the world can still get as “statist” as they want, right? So it seems that you must logically favor** centralization **of government over decentralization. Or are you only concerned with what you perceive as “the American nation”?

**

Only concerned with :”american nation” other countries can do what they want.

Maybe “decentralize” is a bad word – perhaps “shrinking” the size of government, and making it more accountable to the people fits my “minarchist” outlook better.

In fact what I am generally talking about is a constitutionally limited government. Limited to the point of a “night-watchmen” type state.

Part of the confusion here is that my own ideas are not fully crystallized yet. Hopefully this exchange will help me better think through and define my own thoughts. And help me to learn to articulate my views better. (However tardy my replies may be…)

But like I said ,I have come around to certain things I was once against , so I intend to keep an open mind.