That's Not What *I* Mean by Anarchy!

By -
"When I say anarchy, I don't mean a situation in which there is no ruler and a bunch of groups fight to become the ruler. What I mean is there is no ruler and everyone peacefully gets along!"

Yes, this vision is lovely. I understand that what we typically actually see when there is no ruler is different from what you want: (almost) no one is asking for civil war. But if, in fact, that's what we will get, it doesn't really matter if anyone asked for it or not.

Comments

  1. dkuehn6:00 PM

    What's fascinating is that they pick this fallacy out in a nanosecond if it comes out of the mouth of a true believer socialist.

    It's very easy to point this out in these more radical positions. People are even more immune to seeing this sort of problem if they have more moderated positions (center-left rather than far left, libertarian rather than anarchist, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown6:06 PM

    I always had the perception that was what anarchy was and always has been. It's not capitalism, but it's also not communism or anything specific for that matter except in the eye of the beholder. In a realistic sense, the state is not going away anytime soon.

    Good post.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown6:41 PM

    If I have offended you with any prior comments that I have made, then I sincerely apologize for those.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:50 PM

    I haven't said those words exactly, but I do know that I have said something similar to what you elaborate upon in your other post on this subject (though I don't know that I tried to relate it to a refutation of Hobbes).

    In any case, what I often do is ask myself questions in order that I will think them through in order to find an answer. One question that I ask myself is whether or not a monopoly is a prerequisite for societal order? I don't think that it is. The next question that I ask myself is whether or not the current status of the states (and their relation to each other) can be considered a state of anarchy? To this I say yes, because there is no monopoly that enforces the relationship of the states to each other.

    What I've found is that both anarchy and monopoly do indeed exist in certain forms today, and that some are better or worse in certain respects than the other, but that ultimately what is most integral to these arguments for or against such things is a matter of scale.

    While I know that Daniel is generally in favor of world state governance, I have often got the impression that you are not. If this is the case, then surely the logical conclusion of this is that you do favor some degree of anarchy, but that you're disagreement lies in the scale of such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dkuehn4:19 AM

      re: "While I know that Daniel is generally in favor of world state governance"

      Only if drones police our consumption of large sodas, though

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:36 AM

      You have explicitly stated in the past that you are a proponent of world government.

      http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/12/assault-of-thoughts-12272012.html

      Delete
  5. Brian9:50 PM

    "That's not what I mean by government...."

    "When I say government, I don't mean a situation in which no constitutional limit keeps the government from doing an immense variety of evil and damaging things, far beyond any mandate to just maintain social peace. What I mean is it taxes and rules the optimal amount to quell the war of all against all!"

    Yes, this vision is lovely. I understand that what we typically actually see when there is government is different from what you want: (almost) no one is asking for the confusing morass of war, right-violation, and roundrobin income transfer that probably mostly benefits the connected. But if, in fact, that's what we will get, it doesn't really matter if anyone asked for it or not.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more