Being new to this forum, I’m learning quite a bit, most recently that there is a distinction made between anarchy and chaos. I have listed the etymological roots of both for the sake of context:
[anarchy (n.)](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anarchy&allowed_in_frame=0) [](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy)
1530s, from Fr. anarchie or directly from M.L. anarchia, from Gk. anarkhia "lack of a leader, the state of people without a government" (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), noun of state from anarkhos "rulerless," from an- "without" (see [an-](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=an-&allowed_in_frame=0) (1)) + arkhos "leader" (see [archon](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archon&allowed_in_frame=0)).
[chaos](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chaos&allowed_in_frame=0) [](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chaos)
mid-15c., "gaping void," from L. chaos, from Gk. khaos "abyss, that which gapes wide open, is vast and empty," from *khnwos, from PIE root *gheu-, *gh(e)i- "to gape" (cf. Gk khaino "I yawn," O.E. ginian, O.N. ginnunga-gap; see [yawn](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=yawn&allowed_in_frame=0)). Meaning "utter confusion" (c.1600) is extended from theological use of chaos for "the void at the beginning of creation" in Vulgate version of Genesis. The Greek for "disorder" was tarakhe, however the use of chaos here was rooted in Hesiod ("Theogony"), who describes khaos as the primeval emptiness of the Universe, begetter of Erebus and Nyx ("Night"), and in Ovid ("Metamorphoses"), who opposes Khaos to Kosmos, "the ordered Universe." Chaos theory in the modern mathematical sense is attested from c.1977.
So I have to ask, what, if anything, is wrong with chaos? Why stop at anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism)?
I read it back in my bachelor degree days years back. From what I recall, people are inherently competitive and will do anything to anybody at any time to survive or prosper, or to better one’s circumstances, right? It’s been a while, I might need some clarification.
In a state of nature (anarchy), there is ‘a war of all against all.’ it is not just competition, but avarice (as he claims) that cause civil war, etc. People enter into a “social contract” in order to avoid the pitfalls of the strong dominating the weak and creating disharmony. It is BS, but it is a decent refutation of the promotion of chaos.
Look at Pythagoras, “There is no sin greater than anarchy.” What he meant was chaos and refers to the state of reality, not of nature on Earth, but of all matter in the universe.
Well, you either have a moral problem with it or not. I happen to like the division of labor and cooperation, and I also happen to support the golden rule. There is no reason why anyone should support these ideas, except that you find them to be good and moral. So, if you support things like the golden rule, then chaos is wrong.
Chaos and anarcho-capitalism have nothing to do with each other.
I actually believe that there is nothing but chaos. Only in chaos is there freedom. Even in our state of existence, where there is plunder of individuality, liberty and property, we still have natural rights. Everyone is born free, born an individual and has the cognitive and physical faculties needed for gaining private property. Simply because someone or some group interferes is due to their ability to interfere and their choice to do so. Nevertheless, chaos still exists.
In chaos, there is no order. Man can will chaos as he chooses to form order in his mind, but he does so in chaos. But the order exists in mind, and that’s it. In chaos, anything can happen and it would still be chaos. The most perfect triangle could be drawn, the strongest building could be built, and if mankind eventually did not exist, it would demote back to its origin: chaos.
Chaos is inevitable, and the order we experience, the plunder of our natural rights, the enslavement we experience is all a consequence of one person willing himself over another. It doesn’t make it right; it just is, and only a stronger force against that movement can succeed.
This is where I see anarcho-capitalists as being oddly ethical. They believe in right and wrong: right to be free and own property and wrong to be a slave, to enslave and to steal. These are principles, and while I believe they are natural (and agree with AnCaps on this matter), I realize the truth: chaos still exists.
Thus I was curious: why is it that when AnCaps seek truth, they limit themselves to ethics when constructing society? Truth is in chaos.
There never was a Hobbesian state of nature. There never was a social contract. Humans develop self-enforcing, peaceful relations between eachother. The Hobbesian idea that there needs to be a third-party enforcer results in an infinite regress since in order for the first and second parties to be able to contract with the third party, there must also be a fourth and fifth party to enforce that agreement and so forth. The state is based only on the forceful domination of one party over another, and is not at all necessary for an ordered society - nor, I should add, is it sufficient.
Absurd. I’m writing an essay in my spare time comparing Lockean and Pythagorean anarchy. Chaos is unreal, according to Pythagoras, because matter is finely tuned mathematically to exist as we understand it (See: the phi ratio). Locke takes … I’m not giving you all of my points until it is finished, but nevertheless Locke and Pythagoras disagree on what “it” is called, but both advocate reason as the main driver of what makes society function.
reason → moderation → common equity.
Anarchy is true, but you are confused about what “chaos” has meant historically (philosophically speaking). Chaos would mean that physical reality in all of its totality is an accident. Very few people throughout history have had the gall to claim that they know that the existence of physical reality is an “accident” or a product of chaos. It only seems like it from our perspective.
You either have a philosophy for your morality or you don’t. However, everyone has some kind of morality, even if you don’t agree with their morality. So the question really is: whose ethics do we use?
I support the golden rule, and the NAP is just a legal realization of the golden rule. Not everyone shares my opinion though.
I would draw an analogy between the social order and language. Do economic, that is, social laws exist? There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, doubt and confusion within academia regarding the answer to this question. Moral, legal, cultural and even logical nihilism have tremendous sway in the social sciences. But if economic and social laws do not exist, we may as well ask ourselves do words exist? What is a word? Who defines words? Who enforces their usage? Steven Pinker - an expert on language - says no one does.
“Chaos” as an ordering principle of society is no more than a metaphysical possibility - just like physics without gravity or human society without words. So, the question in the OP is moot - it’s like asking, “What, if anything, is wrong with antimatter?” I don’t know and the answer to the question is irrelevant because this universe is composed of matter and non-chaotic societies.
I like the Golden Rule myself. In fact, I live by it. Regardless, I came to believe that was the best way of living by my own choice. I certainly didn’t simply adopt it from Jesus because he’s Jesus. I would restate your latter enquiry as, instead of “whose ethics do we use?” to being “why ethics period? And if ethics, which works best?”
Interesting. Then why are human labeled under the kingom “animalia”?
Pythagoras said chaos is unreal, therefore it must be right. Government said it needs to protect us from ourselves, therefore it must be right. Hmm. . . .
Ethos doesn’t go very far, mate.
What do you mean by “anarchy is true”?
Also, I posted the etymological root of chaos at the beginning of this thread. If that’s not good enough, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines chaos as the unordered, unformed, undifferentiated beginning of things and as an antonym to cosmos, the ordered universe. I’m not saying that physical reality is an accident; only that it is formless and without design and that order doesn’t exist any more than we perceive it to exist. Physical order is non-existent. “Accident” can be a loaded word, mate.
While I believe in God, I am not a teleologist. I’m surprised that you are one. You don’t have to be a teleologist to believe in God, you know.
Precisely. It’s the same with everyone. People either believe the golden rule is just, or they don’t. You either want to live harmoniously with others, or you don’t. Most people do want to, so when someone explains the golden rule (whether it was Jesus or Confucius or someone today), they typically accept it. The problem, in my opinion, is that many people do not understand the implications of the golden rule, and they are indoctrinated for years to believe that aggression is the way to a harmonious existence with others.
No, I think my question is accurate. To ask, “why ethics?” is to miss the point. Ethics is just moral philosophy. Not everyone agrees on what is morally good, but everyone has some kind of morality. Even if you think it’s wrong, they still have it. And to ask, “which works best?” also misses the point. Best according to whom?
I believe my question gets to the heart of the matter. Do we use your ethics, mine, or some combination? Because there are people, there will be morality, it’s just a question of whose morality. I don’t believe in utopia. I don’t think that all aggression will be eradicated from humanity. But I want a society where people are free to pursue their own goals unless they are aggressing against others. Basically, I don’t want centralized ethics. I don’t want there to be one person or a group of people ruling over everyone and saying “this is what is good and this is what is wrong”.
You see what you did there? (Hmm…) Hypocrite much? If chaos is so real, then why are trying to define something. You think it is blue, i think it is red. You tell me why society cannot function if no one agrees on anything.