I can live with that. I’m not sure the Hellenistic mind had much relevance to you and I today.
I can live with that. I’m not sure the Hellenistic mind had much relevance to you and I today.
Lol, well it is very relevant to me, but point taken. I just like to ramble on about the subject when I get a chance to. Though to be fair, Aristotle seems to be viewed pretty highly at Mises.
So, that said and not to distract from what I was saying:
a) the word since it’s 1st use until the 1800’s (so we are talking thousands of years) always meant “bad” and maybe just a condition of society or a symptom of a problem.
b) The word was undermined and politicized (and it I claiming it should not have been), and I am saying it was FIRST undermined by blatant anti-capitalist politics. I am also saying the the word was undermined by not only blatant loony toons, but the minute the word was undermined, it started splintering into hundreds of loony toons with hyphens,. Ex: Anarcho-“I hate capitalism A” to “anarcho- I hate capitalism Z”. I will grant there are a few very notable exceptions, but still too little and too late.
c) Capitalists start to use the word “anarchy”, and it seems to be an uphill battle to use the word. Should the word be used? Are we associating in people’s heads/ or is there a legit dichotomy created by associating a Rothbard, a Friedman, or a Nozick with a Bakunin vs a Burke when the word “anarchy” is used. Obviously we want people to think of our tradition coming from Acton, Burke, Bastiat, etc. are we hurting our position and confusing language by using the word “anarchy”? Does it prevent productive dialogue?
This is my basic train of thought at the moment. And I am wondering if I have a legit concern.
Believe it or not, I am trying to lead up to a conclusion, but I am seeing even if I have a question at this point.
To avoid confusion, hand listeners real life words, not abstract words. To understand, see Politics and the English Language: http://mla.stanford.edu/Politics_&_English_language.pdf
This is very interesting. I wasn’t aware that “anarchy” meant “chaos” or “disorder” even to the Ancient Greeks. Do you have any sources that support your claim?
Regardless, assuming the Ancient Greeks did ascribe such meaning to “anarchy”, it would imply that the word archon didn’t simply mean “ruler” to them.
This is very interesting. I wasn’t aware that “anarchy” meant “chaos” or “disorder” even to the Ancient Greeks. Do you have any sources that support your claim?
Just in case: I do not mean it in a literal 100% synonymous use of the word type of way. That is “anarchy” doesn’t mean “chaos”, as much as the word is used to imply a societal state of chaos, and for the Greek mind chaos is bad and contrasted with cosmos, which is good. It is simply implicit in the definitions. What we would describe as “anarchy” would be described as some form of “natural order (cosmos)” for the Greeks. That is simply how they would use their words. And for the most part I think it may have been like ths for a very very long time.
Regardless, assuming the Ancient Greeks did ascribe such meaning to “anarchy”, it would imply that the word archon didn’t simply mean “ruler” to them.
Well to be technical the word "ἀρχός " means many things such as: beginning, origin; cause, motive, principle, element, leadership, territory, empire, cornor (of a sheet, etc). Notice the word associations that may come out of this. Still my point stands, I didn’t mean it in an absolute literal sense, just that “bad chaos” is implied in the word, it could not nor was ever (so far as I know) used to denote something positive for millenia.
Now on to a couple specific examples:
" For, finding the Hellenes living without laws and in scattered abodes, some oppressed by tyrannies, others perishing through anarchy, she delivered them from these evils by taking some under her protection and by setting to others her own example; for she was the first to lay down laws and establish a polity"
-Isocrates, “Panegyricus”
“And when Samuel had told them that he ought to confirm the kingdom to Saul by a second ordination of him, they all came together to the city of Gilgal, for thither did he command them to come. So the prophet anointed Saul with the holy oil in the sight of the multitude, and declared him to be king the second time. And so the government of the Hebrews was changed into a regal government; for in the days of Moses, and his disciple Joshua, who was their general, they continued under an aristocracy; but after the death of Joshua, for eighteen years in all, the multitude had no settled form of government, but were in an anarchy; after which they returned to their former government, they then permitting themselves to be judged by him who appeared to be the best warrior and most courageous, whence it was that they called this interval of their government the Judges**.”**
-Josephus, “Antiquities”
These are just two examples, I can go on upon request. I could probably do some Latin works too (so I am could use Roman, Greek, and Hebrew thought), if you want me to show the Romans had the same view. I can also give the Hellenic text, if anyone wishes to read it, to show I’m not doing any crazy translating.
The first example was used to show how the unwanted rulership of a king is just as “chaotic” as that of rulership with no king. To be fair, tyranny did not always have a bad connotation, but by the point of this speach, it had become to mean an inherently bad rule (a lawless ruler, one could perhaps even say anarchic rule).
I brought the second example up to show that what many commentators at Mises call “anarchy” in the “Judges period” was not viewed that way among the Hebrew people. Josephus (who wrote the work in Greek) used the word “anarchy” to denote a bad societal set up before the period of Judges.
To avoid confusion, hand listeners real life words, not abstract words. To understand, see Politics and the English Language: http://mla.stanford.edu/Politics_&_English_language.pdf
Excellent article, I wouldn’t mind doing a thread on just this.
But to hammer in a point from the “Pretentious Writing” section:
"Bad writers, and
especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the
notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones…"
"Marxist writinghyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry,
lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from
Russian, German, or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a Latin
or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is
often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital,
non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one’s
meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness."
Orwell hammers clearly right to the point why the word “anarchy” may have been used in the 1st place, and why the word does no good. Sorry about the font and spacing, it didn’t copy and paste so well. This kind of states the conclusion I was trying to lead the dialogue to, but you beat me to it.
Once again, amazing article
It’s a real shame that “nonarchist” never caught on. It’s such a great word.
I call myself an anarchist because I am one, in the full sense of the word. Someone like Hoppe, Block, or Kinsella is not against rulership. I am.
I call myself an anarchist because I am one, in the full sense of the word. Someone like Hoppe, Block, or Kinsella is not against rulership. I am.
My main point was it probably isn’t a very good term for anyone, particularly free marketeers such as myself. But is leftists wish to use strange terms, that is their affair.
If I want to “call myself” something (or more accurately, utilize a term that could symbolize my current political aesthetics) “liberal” may be the ideal (or maybe Whig) if that term can mean opposition/ambivalence to “conservative”, either left or right, thinking. That is, if the term can imply to view and speak of things in constant motion, materialistic, and independent from everything else. It would also state that while egoism is an ontological fact, the political philosophy is only good with a sort of “long haul” overview which would make a natural distaste for revolutionary activity as well as a distaste for any form of subsidy (intellectual/welfare/warfare/etc) as it is materialistic. It also would assume that civilization (meaning cities, division of labor, technology, and getting as much “stuff” as cheap as possible, etc) is a good and desirable thing, and that talk social position/status is a pointless red herring and a quixotic task. That is assuming either of those two words (liberal or whig) are salvageable, which I doubt.
As to what is or is not ruler ship/hierarchies what legal custom are you referring to at the moment? As there are only two ways the term can be coherently used; as a legal fiction or as a self evident subjective ontological reality. We can’t really discuss the latter. Moreover, it makes no sense to speak of “ruler ships” that are not in place, it is creating dragons to slay. All that one can speak of are very real relationships in action, and what actual power can be used to change it in a very real specific situation.
I call myself an anarchist because I am one…is not against rulership. I am.
Perfect example of why “anarchism” should be dropped by supporters of the free market. (And excellent post William)
I find the word plurarchy to be much more descriptive of the kind of society that we must create.
Angurse, I support the free market. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with a dislike of cultural authoritarianism.
Angurse, I support the free market. I don’t see how that’s incompatible with a dislike of cultural authoritarianism.
There must be authorities over property in order for markets to exist.
Wrong. There must be personal might to protect posessions in order for markets to exist. Might used in defense does not necessitate authoritarianism. An authority is someone who controls you and puts themself as superior to you. I oppose that.
Wrong. There must be personal might to protect posessions in order for markets to exist. Might used in defense does not necessitate authoritarianism. An authority is someone who controls you and puts themself as superior to you. I oppose that.
Wrong. Authority - the power or right to give orders or make decisions. Since I make decisions over my possessions I am the authority. Further, if you try to take it I’m going to stop you (that is, control you). I can understand why a thief would oppose my authority however I am superior to thieves so I don’t care.
This is incoherent and at best an appeal to some semantic difference. I can be the authority over my car, or my dinner or my dirty underwear.
Authority wrt property is clear ownership. You can try to call property, possessions and you can try to call authority, defensive might, but at the end of the day, you can’t have free markets without property and ownership.
Angurse, LS, I feel this is sort of unnecessary as a debate because I said cultural authoritarianism, not authority over property.
Angurse, LS, I feel this is sort of unnecessary as a debate because I said cultural authoritarianism, not authority over property.
So you aren’t against rulership?