Anarchists kind of remind me of conservatives, in that they have grand ideas without any thought given to the mechanics of how it works. If you ask a conservative if abortion should be illegal, they usually say it should, but ask them about details and you get an all-too-familiar dumb look on their face.
Who do you punish, the doctor or the patient? What should the punishment be? How is it enforced?
The conservative does not think this far ahead, they just hate Roe v. Wade because their church told them it’s murder to kill a fetus. There’s no actual thought going on, just the regurgitation of ideas that were spoon fed to the sheep.
The anarchist is little different in most respects. Ask an anarchist how private security works. They’ll tell you some bullshit about how it’s voluntary, but not a shred of thought goes beyond this.
Suppose I’m a super conservative Christian living in a voluntarist society. The security force I employ is likely to be one which matches up with my views. Suppose my security force decides homosexuality is a crime.
“But Bret, in an anarchy, there are no stupid rules, only rules which prevent people from doing really bad things.”
But Anarchist… you don’t understand that plenty of people do find that to be a very bad thing. You don’t understand that things are more complicated than your over-simplified view of things. You may be right, that we shouldn’t have laws like a ban on homosexuality, or drugs, or whatever it is in dispute, but enforcing your view of things on others is what you anarchists call “coercion.”
One day I see my neighbor holding hands with a member of the same sex, and they lean in for a kiss. I get pissed, so I call my security force and they come arrest or detain or whatever it is private security forces do. His private security force, which only upholds ultra-liberal views, is smaller than mine, because frankly there are more people who hate ridiculous things in America than there are people who take a “live and let live” mentality. If anything, my private security force is not stopped by his, but his may be outright attacked by mine in a private war of ideologies for supremacy in the area.
Worse yet, suppose my child is gay. They have no choice in who I choose to be the enforcer, is this not coercion? What recourse do any children have in these systems, where the security force is beholden to the one paying the bill?
Suppose my neighbor is selling drugs, or runs a brothel, or does any of a number of things that the average person opposes. Maybe they just go to the wrong church, and that’s a crime. Who knows what private security forces who are left to their own bureaucratic devices will come up with? What recourse do people have?
Again, don’t try to turn this around on what we have now, because that’s just deflecting attention from the questions I’m asking. My ultimate question is: how does anarchy actually correct any of the problems that anarchists complain about? Does anarchy actually correct anything at all, or is it just a rebranding of government? I would say it clearly is, and that it’s a complete crock to pretend that anarchy somehow does away with the natural human tendency to impose ideas and morals on others.
In our current system, grievances can be petitioned, we can protest and change things. We do it everyday, but I guess it’s just not fast enough for the impatient anarchist, because they want it now, now, now. But what does anarchy actually provide in the way of solutions? I think it is merely semantics, that “government” is replaced by private forms of law that provide no means of protest or opposition, more akin to kingships than democracies.
In point of fact, none of this has anything to do with law, but rather it is a ridiculous attempt to re-imagine coercion. It has less to do with enforcement than economics. Anarchists want to believe that they can keep 100% of their money and use it to provide themselves with the services they need, ignoring the economic truth that the overwhelming majority of public services are paid in bulk by the wealthy.
In point of fact, a completely privatized system would provide vastly inferior quality services while creating a society without any consistency in enforcement. And what’s more, a vast amount of people will be provided with no services, being unable to afford it.
Anarchy: bringing oppression from Washington to your backyard. If you abolish the government, who will you blame next when things turn to shit?
If you ask a conservative if abortion should be illegal, they usually say it should, but ask them about details and you get an all-too-familiar dumb look on their face.
ReplyDeleteWho do you punish, the doctor or the patient? What should the punishment be? How is it enforced?
Abortion was illegal in most, if not all of the states. While I have not looked up the expired statutes, I am confident that they adequately answered these questions. It is not terribly different than laws against euthanasia.
After waltzing past this precocious straw man, the rest of your post continues to assume that anarchy endorses the very problems it exposes in current governance. Coercion exists. Legitimizing it is the problem.
Abortion was illegal in most, if not all of the states. While I have not looked up the expired statutes, I am confident that they adequately answered these questions. It is not terribly different than laws against euthanasia.
ReplyDeleteI'm, not asking what people did in the past, I'm asking what people who believe abortion should be illegal right now want, and they don't know.
Coercion exists. Legitimizing it is the problem.
I agree, legitimizing coercion by calling it "anarchy" is a problem.
Of course everyone hates compromise, but is there a mid position that is tenable from excessive state control (like now) to the anarchist position.
ReplyDeleteBret is pointing out one of if not the weakest point in the anarchist position, something I struggle with all the time as I have sympathy with and understand the ideas of the anarchist position but remain unconvinced of it's workability - this point made by Bret is the deepest sticking point for me personally and because of this I remain agrarian rather than "full-on" anarchist in position.
I see both sides stick to the "all or nothing" position and I continue to wonder if a workable position is possible.
I also contend that the anarchist position is the position of the "educated and enlightened" as anarchy is unworkable for the average or lower individual. Translation: stupid and ignorant cannot uphold individualist anarchy, nor weather too long under self-rule.
again, if an anarchist claimed to have the answers to all of these problems, then he could hardly be called an anarchist. i think, what you are looking for is a dictator. you seem to think YOU have all the answers since you criticize anyone who doesn't, so perhaps you should be arguing for a dictatorship, and then seek a position as dictator.
ReplyDeletethat said, it isn't too hard to think of a possible way it might unfold given a much freer society. first of all, a security agency that punished non-aggressive people based on their sexual orientation would not likely exist in the marketplace. who would want to pay a company to provide a service that does absolutely nothing for them? when people are paying for their services directly, they are much more careful when analyzing the costs. it would also become much more evident that what they are doing is immoral since it is much more clear that they are directly paying to have innocent people abducted or whatever. government tends to obfuscate that. security companies that stick solely to providing defensive security would out-compete any that wasted resources hassling harmless people. they would have the cheapest rates and best service.
and ostracism would also be a great tool to use against the few that can't respect people's rights.
you seem to think YOU have all the answers since you criticize anyone who doesn't, so perhaps you should be arguing for a dictatorship, and then seek a position as dictator.
ReplyDeleteHow do you draw this conclusion from me asking questions? I have nothing to sell here. I'm really saddened that it seems like anarchy is just another religious belief, defended by followers who would sooner insult someone asking about it than take the time to patiently address concerns.
I sometimes wonder why I bother...
generally when you criticize someone for not knowing something, it is requisite that you claim to have the answer.
ReplyDeleteAnarchists claim anarchy will improve society, yet I have not been provided with any concrete explanations regarding how anarchy will actually solve any of the problems we have.
ReplyDeleteI also find your "requisite" quite ironic, because all I hear from anarchists are complaints and no answers. I think it's perfectly fine to criticize something without having the answer, which is why I can occassioanlly relate to anarchists.
Hi Bret("Ginx" Alan)...not exactly a comment in the true sense of the word I guess but today is the 1st day Blogger has condescended to allow me to view my followers widget thingy or whatever it's called here. So now I know you kindly appeared there ;) just dropping in to say hi and thank you! Not sure how long you've been gracing my none-viewable widget thingy but hopefully not too long or you must think I'm very ignorant! Well...very cool site you have here :) I have officially only been here a month or so tho I think I opened the account back in July (ish) so any advice and suggestions/constructive critisism gratefully received. You look like you know what you're doing unlike me!! :)
ReplyDeleteRe your post...on a slightly different angle, it reminds me of the "I hate Vista...Vista's "no good"...hoardes I meet who in reality have no idea why it's "no good" or even why they don't like except someone else said so...they loved it and thought it was great the day before when "someone" hadn't been met... well...just a thought ;)
of course, the process of eliminating coercion; removing a gigantic barrier to our liberties; stepping beyond the idea that we can someone achieve progress by pointing guns at each other, is in itself an immediate improvement on society. i can't claim to know what the outcome of this would be, any more than people could predict the outcome of abolition.
ReplyDeletethe very premise of anarchy rests on the principle that every individual, and no other person or group of people, should choose his path through life. it is impossible to know the path that you will take yourself, let alone the paths the millions of other people.
who knows what innovative solutions people might devise for settling disputes or providing security?
"the very premise of anarchy rests on the principle that every individual, and no other person or group of people, should choose his path through life. it is impossible to know the path that you will take yourself, let alone the paths the millions of other people."
ReplyDeleteQuoted for truth. Bret mentioned "vision" earlier. That's bullshit. Having a vision for a society is a myth because of something called unintended consequences. My decision making process on a daily basis involves a lot of sponteneity - and I love it.
I firmly believe we can tolerate some form of "arbitrator" but I completely reject the notion of Leviathan controlling many aspects of of private lives.
We need people deciding what other people, for example, can eat like we need a bullet in the head. See San Francisco.
I have no problem with such a group taking it to the streets trying to educate people. That's healthy to me - but the minute they pull shit like they did with McDonald's it's a big fuck you from me.