Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Cartman]

Hugo,

As I understand it, most of your defense of anarchy is based on freedom from formal control exerted by the state. I can appreciate this to an extent, as it is not a far stretch to perceive current industrial democracies as being similar to feudal monarchies. However, in my judgement, formal institutional control used by the state amounts to relatively little control over most people's actions because informal self-control is more powerful.

Examples

Does a person really make a choice whether they follow religious principles or not if they are taught at an early age that God exists? After all, there is a strong correlation between being introduced to religion early in life and being religious in adulthood. If a person is attracted to someone of the same sex, yet remains "in the closet" so to speak and the state makes no distinction between them as legal subjects, are the closeted not still controlled? If a person, temporarily out of work, uses welfare to pay the bills but votes for a political party that publicly announces reductions to or elimination of payments to welfare recipients because they drain the public purse, then are they not controlled ideologically?

Antonio Gramsci speaks of "hegemonic" control. Is this not really the most powerful form of control that every person experiences yet can rarely ever identify and therefore ever eradicate?

[Hugo]

As I understand it, most of your defense of anarchy is based on freedom from formal control exerted by the state.

No, my defence of anarchy is based on freedom from violence. Any individual or institution who attempts to influence people in any fashion using violence, fraud or the threat thereof is that which anarchy is opposed to.

Usually, and especially in the last two centuries or so, this means the state or government, although organised religion has been a culprit in the past (given state complicity in their acts, of course).

However, I am unopposed to religious principles (ideas), childhood education, social pressure and so forth that are not backed by violence or the threat of it. Ideas and schools of thought should be free to compete, however, when one idea gains the backing of coercion that competition is destroyed.

Antonio Gramsci speaks of "hegemonic" control. Is this not really the most powerful form of control that every person experiences yet can rarely ever identify and therefore ever eradicate?

Well, I would say that the most powerful form of control that we experience is physical laws. I can't fly, I can't run at 100kph, I can't turn mud into gold, I can't eat twenty pounds of chocolate per day without getting fat, etc. What is your solution to this powerful and insidious control? Would you not say that this is a severe limitation on freedom and liberty?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

I see a problem developing from our current policing system, which I also think would be an inherent problem under any 'self-policing' system. It is the profit motive. The Calgary Police (and I am sure other cities and districts) have begun to move their efforts away from law-enforcement and crime prevention, and are putting them towards revenue collection.

Red light cameras, and especially the Multa-nova radar system, are cash generators moreso than they are 'safety generators'. If I were wealthy, a photo radar ticket would be no more than a minor inconvenience. I would even ask, if I were able, to buy a 'monthly speeding pass', or to make a cash deposit against any future tickets I might get. "Here's $1000 dollars, let me know when I use it up". It is only a deterrent to those of lesser income.

If the profits generated by devices such as these are used to buy more devices, it suits to serve the profit motive, but not (or at least less) the citizens. (I disagree with the practice of any of the fines collected going to cover the costs of the police service). The goal of those involved in business is to 'maximize profit' and it cannot be said that there is any profit to be had arresting a murderer, (Or even less, preventing the murder), so in what direction shall the police go?

Now, relating this to Anarchy and self policing, the Anarchist has a vested interest that the same 'policing for profit' scheme would also occur. It would be folly for the individual anarchist to spend more on policing than one could expect in return. You would 'bleed red ink' and therefore your rights would be doubly violated, should a 'crime' occur. (For the sake of reasonable argument, let's take a simple example of such a crime. Say, a tresspasser comes onto your property, and siphons gas from your car. Two crimes, really, but with demonstrable loss) Now, if you catch the person responsible, and make them pay restitution, what shall it be? The cost of the gas? What should the penalty be for the tresspassing? If you only recover the cost of the gas, you have still lost overall, because you spent effort (that could have been used elsewhere) in the recovery. It would only be fair that you you recover your gas plus the costs of recovery.

How would an anarchist recover anything without violating the rights of the tresspasser? ( To take this to extreme, some places in the US have the 'instant death penalty' for tresspassing, if you are caught on the wrong person's land)

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the policing system must belong to a non-aligned 'social structure mechanism' with standardized penalties, and a shared cost through the taxpayer.

[Hugo]

I see a problem developing from our current policing system, which I also think would be an inherent problem under any 'self-policing' system. It is the profit motive.

Your argument is only examining a symptom, not the problem. The actual problem is the tragedy of the commons. In an anarchist society, without public property, no police force would be allowed to set up speed traps and so forth without the permission of the owners of the road.

The owners of the road are dictated to by the consumers, the drivers, because if the drivers are dissatisfied they will pick an alternate route and the road owners will lose money. Therefore, in the anarchist society the level of policing for speed limits will exactly reflect the compromise in the public mind between safety, and speed or convenience. There will be multiple compromises, and so there will be multiple solutions. One size does not fit all and never will.

How would an anarchist recover anything without violating the rights of the tresspasser?

This has been very well dealt with in the works of David Friedman. I'm going to attempt a brief and wholly inferior summary here which I hope will suffice.

Basically, the anarchist has no need to violate the rights of the trespasser. He can request that the trespasser appear at a mutually agreeable tribunal and be bound by its decision. If the trespasser refuses, he will have the huge black mark against him that he was accused of a crime and refused to submit to justice. It is a tacit admission of guilt and a declaration of irresponsibility and lack of remorse. In an exclusively private society, he will find it almost impossible to get employment, goods and services or even to move around freely. Therefore, the strong incentive is to submit to a court and have this black mark erased, to pay one's debt as it were.

As to your question of recovering costs of catching the thief, it's really simple and already done in courts today. The court simply awards damages plus costs. The thief is made to pay the full cost of his crime to his victim. Of course, under our current system victims get nothing. The state holds their property and their very lives as being truly worthless.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the policing system must belong to a non-aligned 'social structure mechanism' with standardized penalties, and a shared cost through the taxpayer.

Certainly, and if only the state could ever provide that! But it cannot. Until Jesus gets involved in the policing business this is not going to happen. Any political body is by very definition aligned, to the majority in a democracy, or to the king in a monarchy, for instance.

As to the standardized penalties, a brief review of sentencing should show you that penalties are by no means standardized and are a matter of the whimsy of the court.

As to shared cost, no taxation system truly shares the cost. Somebody always has to pay more than their fair share, and some people will always be freeloading. The only way to ensure a pricing system that is truly fair is with a market.

[Cartman]

Hugo,

I did not anticipate that you would claim coercion is merely physical! You mention that physical laws dominate us (i.e. eating chocolate and gaining weight), but I would say that many people are afraid of their weight not for health reasons, but because the mass media dominates us ideologically and tells us we are ugly if we are not thin. Some anorexics destroy themselves in the pursuit of thinness.

If a cult convinces their followers that a spaceship is heading to earth and will take them to heaven once they commit suicide but not force them to do so, then is this acceptable in the eyes of the anarchist? Free choice is illusory.

My point is that anarchy will not work, because even if you eradicate the physical repression of the modern state, there will always be greed and some will always dominate others whether physical repression exists or not. Is not the modern state the best example of my logic? Most people do not try to buck the system, because they truly believe it is legitimate.

[August1991]

but because the mass media dominates us ideologically and tells us we are ugly if we are not thin.

there will always be greed

Cartman, please reconcile those two statements.

Greedy people, I assume, are concerned primarily for themselves. They are rarely if ever swayed into doing something that is not to their benefit.

So, how can mass media dominate such people?

----

Hugo made the better argument that advertising will never get people to give up their MP3 players in favour of 8 track tapes, or give up their SUVs in favour of horses.

The Left frequently confuses form for content, symbol for reality, signal for message.

[Cartman]

All people act, in part, upon self-interest or at least what they perceive is their self-interest. But, this is not to say that people always do what is best for them (crime, unsafe sex, smoking etc). Their self-interest is impaired so to speak and directed partly by others (mass media is just one way). If Smith thought that we constantly calculate pleasure and pain, he did not realize that some people seem to frequently make faulty calucations. They have reduced levels of self-control.

How else are we to explain why people do things that are not in their best interests but may be in the interests of others?

people who smoke and drink

people who join cults only to commit suicide

people who become anorexic, bulimic or obese

people who listen to Phil Collins

People may make decisions, but not always within the context they would choose.

Maybe people will not be convinced to give up their MP3 players in favour of 8 tracks, but where did they get the idea to buy either? What are they likely listening to? Mozart or Britney Spears? Why does it seem as though younger people listen to music more often than older people? Free choice?

[Hugo]

I did not anticipate that you would claim coercion is merely physical!

It's very difficult to make the case that coercion is not purely physical. In the case of emotional or intellectual "coercion", as you are describing, you are not trying to force somebody to act against their will but instead, to change their will so that a person acts in accordance both with their will and your desire.

In any case, the first problem is that there is no clear boundary between informing somebody and persuading somebody. I might give you a list of facts and, upon reading them, you might change your mind. Did I "coerce" you?

The second is that any attempt to rid society of these non-physical coercions would be to apply more coercion, to make them shut up. Thus, your cure is as bad as the disease.

And thirdly, you must be aware that your attempt to convince others of the wrongness of their non-physical coercions is, in and of itself, yet another non-physical coercion.

[August1991]

people who smoke and drink

Maybe they enjoy it. A better example would be people who take heroin.

people who join cults only to commit suicide

That is not a widespread phenomenon.

people who listen to Phil Collins

I guess they like it, or are coerced into listening while walking in a mall where it is playing.

people who become anorexic, bulimic or obese

I guess they feel they have no other way to argue with their Mom.

----

Rationality says nothing about what people want, it merely suggests that people will seek the easiest way to get it.

----

Maybe people will not be convinced to give up their MP3 players in favour of 8 tracks, but where did they get the idea to buy either?

Probably from their friends. But bnow you are saying that advertising is merely informative of new products. True but it is more than that.

Advertising works in the same way good spelling on this forum works.

What are they likely listening to? Mozart or Britney Spears?

Don't be a snob.

Why does it seem as though younger people listen to music more often than older people? Free choice?

For the same reason, I suspect, that young people dance alot more than older people. They can, and they want the world to know.

[Cartman]

It's very difficult to make the case that coercion is not purely physical.

It's very difficult to make the case that most behaviour is the result of choice. Human behaviour is incredibly ordered. I maintain that most of our behaviours are ordered in informal ways (i.e. how we gesture, what we do in elevators, what we wear etc.). I am intentionally using trivial examples here to illustrate how pervasive is this order.

Equally striking, however, is how many behaviours are patterned by membership in particular groups, not random throughout society. Generally speaking, males and females are expected to behave in certain ways (i.e. women and men dress differently) . How are we to explain why all or most members of a specific social category behave in incredibly similar ways? Is it just coincidence that almost all men and women choose to wear a specific range of clothing each day? No way, they make constrained choices. Males do not wake up and decide between a dress and a suit, they will decide between colours/styles of suits and believe this choice is entirely their own.

Going further, I would say that violation of these trivial informal rules can be met with strong opposition and maybe even force. Perhaps there are few state laws dictating dress codes, but the reaction against a violation of this informal order is sufficient enough to ensure most obey it. People can be ignored, avoided, humiliated, shamed, considered irrational and incapable, stupid and unqualified for responsibility etc. etc. And if you do not believe me Hugo and August, then go ahead and wear a dress to work tomorrow. Neither of you will do this because human behaviour is ordered and you are afraid to violate this order due to the consequences. Chances are that these consequences do not include state sanction.

Anarchy can only slightly reduce human oppression and may even increase it in some ways (though the latter is another argument).

QUOTE 

What are they likely listening to? Mozart or Britney Spears?

Don't be a snob.

I just meant that one is popular while the other is less so amongst this group. I was a snob, however, when I referred to Phil Collins.

[August1991]

And if you do not believe me Hugo and August, then go ahead and wear a dress to work tomorrow. Neither of you will do this because human behaviour is ordered and you are afraid to violate this order due to the consequences.

Nor will I speak English in a room full of French people.

Humans are social and we use a whole range of symbols to communicate. For the most part, these symbols concern a variety of messages concerning our willingness/ability to co-operate. The symbols have to be intelligible.

The interesting questions concern where did the symbols come from and are they honest?

I think adolescents are more interested in this than older people because they are coming to grips with this form of communication.

[Hugo]

Anarchy can only slightly reduce human oppression and may even increase it in some ways (though the latter is another argument).

Then make that argument, if you can.

A wise man once said that you should not attack or destroy something unless you have at least a vision of what you want to replace it, and how to do that. It seems to me that you are attacking human society, but you have no idea what to replace it with or even what to do if you destroyed it. In fact, the only possible solution I see you having is exactly the same as the problem - force to combat force. Worse, physical violence to combat metaphysical pressures.

The thing is, as I alluded to, that there are some things that you cannot change. You cannot fly, nor can you escape social pressures, since these are inbuilt parts of human nature. Humans are perambulatory creatures, and they are social creatures. However, you can refrain from violence. If you want to destroy what you see as oppressive social norms, then you are asking to destroy humanity.

Moreover, the metaphysical does not force us to act against our will, it changes our will. For example, yesterday I washed the car. I didn't want to, in fact, there were a hundred other things I would rather have done. But I did it. You could say that "social pressure" drove me to clean my car, however, the fact was that I chose to obey those social pressures and go clean my car. It was a reluctant choice, but in the end I chose (and was not forced by anyone except myself) to clean the car. Social pressures etc. are not forces, they are influences.

Plenty of people buck social trends all the time, like goths, atheists, nudists, fetishists, yes, even anarchists. What does this tell you?

[Cartman]

August’s political orientation test suggested that I was not quite Stalin, but statist and left-wing nevertheless. For me, current state restraint (coercion) is an unfortunate necessity because of human greed; our current system probably the ideal at the moment. By nature, people are greedy but are also generally receptive to morality; a social creation, people inevitably regress towards the group’s social sentiments. This makes coexistence possible, but not without serious conflict. This is because some people possess low levels of internalized self-control as a result of biology or faulty socialization while others are born into advantaged positions and can more easily press their wills upon others. Both will act egregiously should sufficient opportunities present themselves. Sadly, my conclusion is that we need a democratic state to maintain checks on power and impulse.

If memory serves Hugo, in some posts you seem to agree that people are greedy (I think it was in regards to welfare fraud?). But, by promoting anarchy, you suggest that somehow people will be able to sufficiently restrain themselves without coercion. To me, this suggests one of two logical alternatives:

1. You have identified some other aspect of human nature that will surface in anarchy to allow for peaceful coexistence or,

2. You have identified another powerful but possibly elusive social force of restraint.

I apologize if you have done so elsewhere, but I would like you to clarify which one, if any, you sustain. I truly respect your ideas and thoughts and hope that no offense will be taken by this post.

[Hugo]

For me, current state restraint (coercion) is an unfortunate necessity because of human greed; our current system probably the ideal at the moment.

Unfortunately, government is designed and exercised by men. If men are prone to greed, then this will be also true of the men in government, therefore, such a system will not solve anything because it is still vulnerable to the problems it is supposed to solve.

As Alex Tytler said, "A democracy... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

But, by promoting anarchy, you suggest that somehow people will be able to sufficiently restrain themselves without coercion. To me, this suggests one of two logical alternatives:

1. You have identified some other aspect of human nature that will surface in anarchy to allow for peaceful coexistence or,

2. You have identified another powerful but possibly elusive social force of restraint.

I don't think I have identified either. Anarchy depends upon human beings behaving as they always have. Basically, you don't grant anybody a license for coercion. This effectively harnesses the human proclivity for co-operation for self-interest. Humans, when placed in groups, are still selfish but can recognise that they can get even more for themselves if they work together e.g. by division of labour. Therefore, if one person was to make a bid for power, others would co-operate and work against him. Anarchy simply removes the illusion that this concentration of power and license to violence has any kind of legitimacy.

You should also know that, of the historical examples of anarchism, none have collapsed or been destroyed through anything except foreign intervention. Whatever the internal pressures of anarchy, they are apparently insufficient for the task of its self-destruction.

[Cartman]

Humans, when placed in groups, are still selfish but can recognise that they can get even more for themselves if they work together e.g. by division of labour. Therefore, if one person was to make a bid for power, others would co-operate and work against him.

Here is where our opinions diverge. This is too great a leap of faith for me. We seem to agree that some people would make a "bid for power", but we disagree that others would cooperate/work against her/him. We also disagree insofar as even if people were so enlightened to turn against those bidding for power, they could do so without the use of coercion.

[Hugo]

Perhaps you will enlighten me as to why. It would be in the self-interest of others to co-operate against a powermonger, after all, only he will benefit from his power!

Regardless, your argument seems to be that the worst possible scenario for anarchy would be the emergence of another government, which is hardly a great indictment of anarchy or a great defence of government, I must say!

[Cartman]

It would be in the self-interest of others to co-operate against a powermonger, after all, only he will benefit from his power!

Some powermongers survive a long time and are not seriously opposed (Stalin). Worse yet, they mange to pursuade people to follow them despite their ruthlessness(Hitler).

Regardless, your argument seems to be that the worst possible scenario for anarchy would be the emergence of another government, which is hardly a great indictment of anarchy or a great defence of government, I must say!

My argument is that a more sinister state might evolve should the current one be eradicated.

[Hugo]

Some powermongers survive a long time and are not seriously opposed (Stalin). Worse yet, they mange to pursuade people to follow them despite their ruthlessness(Hitler).

Did they not come from the advantageous standpoint of an existing state, however? And, where states have been destroyed and replaced with more egregious ones, were these more egregious states not the goal from the outset, rather than the goal being statelessness which ended up producing an egregious state?

My argument is that a more sinister state might evolve should the current one be eradicated.

But how could this happen? The entire country could commit suicide tomorrow, but it isn't very likely, you have to admit. It's not enough to state that something is possible, what you need to do is prove not that the emergence of a more sinister state is certain, only that it is likely.

What makes it unlikely, in my mind, is that anarchy starts with statelessness. Nobody has formed a state, so one will have to form. While it is forming, it will not have the monopoly on violence or law that a state enjoys, and so there will be time to recognise what is happening and prevent it. Of course, it's possible that nobody would notice what was happening or would not care about it until it was too late, but self-interest makes this a pretty unlikely outcome.

[Cartman]

Off the top of my head Hugo, Germany had been a powerhouse (Bismark), then decimated by war with a weak democracy put in place afterwards. Hitler managed to pursuade people that his power grab would provide all Germans with enhanced power. He spoke against democracy and people followed even though I am sure many were scared. Would it not have been in their self-interest to push him from power?

It's not enough to state that something is possible, what you need to do is prove not that the emergence of a more sinister state is certain, only that it is likely.

I am operating from the standpoint that the burden is on you to demonstrate that peaceful anarchy is not just a possibility, but a likelihood.

[Hugo]

Hitler managed to pursuade people that his power grab would provide all Germans with enhanced power. He spoke against democracy and people followed even though I am sure many were scared. Would it not have been in their self-interest to push him from power?

Actually, Hitler never got a genuine vote in which he received a popular mandate. The majority of people were opposed to him, even in 1933. He was brought to power through constitutional wrangling afforded by the Weimar state.

I am operating from the standpoint that the burden is on you to demonstrate that peaceful anarchy is not just a possibility, but a likelihood.

Well, we could start with an example: medieval Iceland, which existed as a peaceful anarchist state for over three hundred years (far longer than the US has existed) until Norwegian political subversion and military intervention destroyed it.

To demonstrate this with a little theory, it is a fact that the free market has never produced a monopoly (not one that lasted any appreciable length of time, anyway). The only economic monopolies that have existed did so with state backing. All we do is extend the free market to include law and justice, and in doing so, we place on those markets the same natural market safeguards that prevent monopoly.

But to truly answer your question, I need you to tell me what you think the downfall of anarchy would be so that I can address it. Otherwise, you're asking me to prove a negative (i.e. to prove that nothing stands in the way of peaceful anarchy) and, as you know, that is impossible. Otherwise, I would lay out a scenario, and you would say, "but what if?" endlessly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The 'downfall' of anarchy is that it cannot exist. The moment there is a collectivity, there are collective interests. The moment anyone acts on collective interests there is government.

[Hugo]

The 'downfall' of anarchy is that it cannot exist.

But it has existed, in Ireland, Iceland, Pennsylvania and so forth. Iceland is a great example, and existed in an anarchist state for three centuries before being destroyed by Norway.

The moment anyone acts on collective interests there is government.

Why? Is it not possible to act on a collective interest without coercing anybody?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The 'downfall' of anarchy is that it cannot exist.

But it has existed, in Ireland, Iceland, Pennsylvania and so forth. Iceland is a great example, and existed in an anarchist state for three centuries before being destroyed by Norway.

Those were not anarchist societies.

The moment anyone acts on collective interests there is government.

Why? Is it not possible to act on a collective interest without coercing anybody?

Coercing? What are you talking about?

[Hugo]

Those were not anarchist societies.

Why not? They had no single political authority and nobody had a monopoly over any good, including law and justice. Therefore anarchist.

Coercing? What are you talking about?

Government acts by coercion. You say that acting on collective interests must be done by coercion. I'm asking why you think that, why a collective interest cannot possibly be fulfilled voluntarily.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Those were not anarchist societies.

Why not? They had no single political authority and nobody had a monopoly over any good, including law and justice. Therefore anarchist.

What do you mean by "no single political authority"? How could they have law if there was no authority?

Coercing? What are you talking about?

Government acts by coercion.

That may be your definition, but it is faulty.

You say that acting on collective interests must be done by coercion.

No, consent will serve.

I'm asking why you think that, why a collective interest cannot possibly be fulfilled voluntarily.

It can be. What needs examination is why you would claim that voluntariness precludes government.