Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Hark Hark, Anarch!

A few posts ago I declaimed authoritatively on the subject of anarchy and anarchism [link]. But now I see that I really just scratched the surface, and was only thinking of the theoretical anarchism to which libertarianism is so often a gateway drug. That kind of anarchism is I guess dormitory bull session stuff, and is all about the theory of how to get along without government, and it usually involves convincing everybody to try, and then working out ways to get the necessary stuff, like defense and justice, etc., that government customarily provides, or is supposed to. And that is indeed bull session material, to be found in universities and bars.

But Vulture of Critique [link] detected the deficiency right away, in that I'd restricted my thinking to, well, thinking, and neglected anarchy as a condition, as opposed to an end-in-itself plan, that is itself a result of another plan, whether explicitly intended or not.

This is heady stuff, and it will go well over the heads of the net anarcho-capitalists and their variations, because again, they're into thinking and theory, which is part of what people are, but only a part. Factors much more creepy and crawly — psychological and theological, etc. — are, if anything, a much larger chunk of what humanity is, no matter what we may think.  Vulture writes:

When you say, “Anarchy,” do you mean, “Theocracy?”

The first Bioshock game included a fervently atheistic dictator. This dictator, Andrew Ryan, talked a lot about individualism and freedom. But he did not like people who individualistically chose freedom of religion. He only wanted freedom from religion, plus freedom of sexual debauchery and freedom to make and spend money. He claimed to reject governments and kings – but in fact he was a king in all important respects. He claimed to be free from religion – but his personality resembled that of a charismatic, fanatical cult leader.
This is a very common problem with most self-proclaimed anarchists. They want to tear down the old forms of slavery – which are often quite easy to see – and replace them with new forms of slavery – which are often more difficult to see.
I think Ex-Army is wrong about anarchy, and I am going to try to argue about it.
Keep reading here:
-----------
And I think what I wrote before wasn't exactly wrong, but it was certainly inadequate. Vulture goes way deeper.
------------
Quibcag:The girls who look like they're in a cult are actually just in high school. They're from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).
------------
And finally, speaking of cults, a bonus graphic:

3 comments:

  1. Bioshock - "Where the scientist wouldn't be constrained by petty morality", so would be free to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction.

    VoC points out the anxiety of achieving Greatness, but what is missed is during the period we abandoned the achieving of mere goodness which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. So you have magnificent barbarians attempting to be statesmen. Noble savages.

    I think Stefan Molyneux - freedomainradio.com - recently had the 2nd interview with Vox is the first honest anarcholibertarian I've found - he says you can't achieve it without a moral population.

    Where he and most others lose it is to forget someone has to do the defense. Even Molyneux described a nighmarish DRO dystopia (without realizing it) for about 50 minutes

    From what I can tell, even of Iceland and the not so Wild West is that unless you are all Quakers (Rothbard's pre-revolution USA examples), everyone needs to be armed. If every household is prepared to defend themselves and resolve differences politely, you need little government. Households usually mean traditional nuclear families. You might need a sheriff for exceptions, who can deputize a posse and a Judge that hopefully is part time. But if don't like the inverted pyramid of a big weaponized national government, the correct approach is to first invert the pyramid.

    What the libertarians are trying to accomplish has never happened - to create institutions to insure good behavior - on certain select things which does not include debauchery or promiscuity - to allow animals, or "men without chests" to roam free in society. So they replace the Tao with the NAP (reduced by Rothbardian ethics), then create tyrannical, totalitarian DROs that will lay siege and starve you out (see the audio above) if you don't "voluntarily" sign a contract with one of them for 10x more than your current combined tax bill from the various levels of the state. And call the result freedom.

    The alternative is in James Wesley, Rawles "Promised Land" which is about a minimal minarchy set in the future. But there protection is up to the individual, and there is a militia.

    Freedom is about independence and not interdependence. The moment you depend on others for your life, liberty, or property or even happiness, you cease to be free, even if it is "voluntary exchange" in theory.

    Most people are dependent on their mobile device infrastructure or even the internet as well as electric power so they will give up nearly anything to insure they continue, and in the latter case the estimate is 90% dead after a year after an EMP or solar flare brings it down.

    This is the hidden hypocrisy of the anarcholibertarian. They will sell their souls to Apple and Verizon and Google when they click "I Accept", but even the Articles of Confederation are considered far too big government. This goes back to the lack of Tao Natural Law morality - they don't even really understand "freedom" and "liberty", so are like SJWs that ignore muslim rape mobs but screech over a few boorish words on a campus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction, the DRO is 50 minutes IN, but lasts about 15 minutes.

      Delete
  2. Many thanks for the kind reply and the QUIBCAG.

    I've modified the post to include your QUIBCAG!

    "
    VoC points out the anxiety of achieving Greatness, but what is missed is during the period we abandoned the achieving of mere goodness which is a necessary but not sufficient condition. So you have magnificent barbarians attempting to be statesmen. Noble savages."

    Someone once said the USA was great only because it was good, and if it ever ceased to be good, it would cease to be great.

    Anarchists are often in revolt against poorly-taught systems of morality. Very often they neglect to replace their exploded morals with anything, and sometimes they replace outmoded morals with something even worse.

    ReplyDelete