Hugo's defence of anarchy

[Charles Anthony]

Now, I will bite because...

I suppose a question I must ask is "To which form of 'leadership' would an libertarian anarchist most prefer to acquiesce?"

....finally, we are talking about something more concrete and practical.

To be fair, the answer is not logically universal and depends on personal preference. It is like asking "What is an anarchist favorite ice cream flavor?"

I can only speak for myself. The type of leadership is irrelevent compared to the geographic size or borders. In other words, I would rather be trapped in a smaller jurisdiction than a larger one.

Now, I would like to address some of your statements.

I think of anarchy as absolute zero on a thermometer: never physically attainable but the starting point from which to objectively measure the heat.

A good analogy, but it also must be seen as zero on a 'moral thermometer'.

Please explain your defintion of "moral" in particular with respect to how the principle is applied to inanimate objects and hypothetical ideas. I want to make sure that we use the same measuring stick.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

The type of leadership is irrelevent compared to the geographic size or borders.

I should think it would be the opposite. I would expect you would favour a '1% flat-taxing, laissez-faire gov't' over a Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist) regime, no matter what the boundaries are.

I want to make sure that we use the same measuring stick.

I doubt we will be...

Please explain your defintion of "moral" in particular with respect to how the principle is applied to inanimate objects and hypothetical ideas.

Previously, perhaps on this thread, I defined 'the meaning of life' as 'being'. That is, 'to be'. In that spirit, I believe the absolute moral 'summum bonum' is that all things are given 'the right to be', or to have access to those things which enable them 'to be'.

[Charles Anthony]

The type of leadership is irrelevent compared to the geographic size or borders.

I should think it would be the opposite.

Ah.... the borders / no-borders paradox.

I would expect you would favour a '1% flat-taxing, laissez-faire gov't' over a Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist) regime, no matter what the boundaries are.

I must clarify that when I said "geographic size or borders" I equate a larger country to go hand-in-hand with a larger population. The numbers of people sharing (but separated by geographic distance) the same leadership with me is important to my choice.

Thus, I will generally choose a smaller jurisdiction over a larger one.

The reason is simple: I trust a smaller population (read: the "government" is physically closer to its population) to keep its government under control more than I trust a larger population (read: taxation without representation) would.

A different way to look at it is that it is more difficult to hide injustice in smaller jurisdictions than it is in larger ones.

I want to understand your terms so that I might crack the riddle of Thelonialism.

I want to make sure that we use the same measuring stick.

I doubt we will be...

...if it is kept secret.

Much like I must first know the rules of soccer -- I mean, football, so that I can better understand the game that is being played before me.

Please explain your defintion of "moral" in particular with respect to how the principle is applied to inanimate objects and hypothetical ideas.

Previously, perhaps on this thread, I defined 'the meaning of life' as 'being'. That is, 'to be'. In that spirit, I believe the absolute moral 'summum bonum' is that all things are given 'the right to be', or to have access to those things which enable them 'to be'.

Only "to have access" sounds concrete to me. That one clause suggests a lot.

What power does a human have to be "moral" in the Fleabusiness model?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

I equate a larger country to go hand-in-hand with a larger population. The numbers of people sharing (but separated by geographic distance) the same leadership with me is important to my choice.

Thus, I will generally choose a smaller jurisdiction over a larger one

If you had your 'perfect gov't of choice', it shouldn't matter how big the geographical area is (nor the population in it), the same rules would apply throughout. As an 'anarchist', though, (or perhaps I could use the term 'minimalist'), your preference should lean towards a country with a population of one. You. Further, if you believe in 'capitalism', then the borders for your 'nation of one' should be going in the direction of 'as large as possible'.

What power does a human have to be "moral" in the Fleabusiness model?

I am not sure I understand the question. The 'power to be moral' lies with each individual. Just as the 'throne of the almighty' (or whatever god one may worship) resides in your heart (or 'soul' or even 'mind'), and not in a church. It is up to the individual as to whom or what they choose to place on that throne.

[Charles Anthony]

I equate a larger country to go hand-in-hand with a larger population. The numbers of people sharing (but separated by geographic distance) the same leadership with me is important to my choice.

Thus, I will generally choose a smaller jurisdiction over a larger one

If you had your 'perfect gov't of choice', it shouldn't matter how big the geographical area is (nor the population in it), the same rules would apply throughout.

My choice centers around the innate characteristics of humans (some are evil and some are lazy) and when governments step on individual rights.

Thus, one person (myself) lost within a larger (regardless of the label or government) country will likely be trampled and have no voice.

Whereas, one person among a smaller country has more chance at defending oneself.

It is just a balance of power.

Also, I give people credit for defending themselves and their neighbors -- otherwise they would not live next to one another. Most people appreciate eachother's peaceful company. (I believe that is why solitary confinement usually leads to madness.) I do believe people who live in peace rise up to unite to defend a neighbor in need or to defend themselves against a foreign invader. A larger population (or imposed structure) will tend to make it easier for evil to be concealed and easier to shirk ones role in defending their neighbor -- even though I would still not make it an obligation to do so.

As an 'anarchist', though, (or perhaps I could use the term 'minimalist'), your preference should lean towards a country with a population of one. You.

Correct.

Thus, I prefer sharing 1/100th of total power instead of 1/30,000,000th of total power. Simple. It is a balance of power.

Remember, regardless of the label of the government, my government is closer to me with a smaller jurisdiction. Thus, if I wanted to speak out or defend myself, I would have a better chance with my neighbors by my side.

I prefer being called simply an anarchist for a few reasons:

1) that is the best word despite its bad reputation

2) I am not ashamed particularly when I get a chance to explain my peaceful stance

3) there are too many confused communists and disillusioned socialists who call themselves anarchists. I enjoy defending the good name of Anarchy against them and being a thorn in their side too!

I could use the label libertarian but there are too many variations of justifying the existance of government.

I unequivocally oppose coercion (and thus, any form of "government" per se) even though I recognize some are better than others.

The term minimalist is likely subject to interpretation. I will not even bother looking it up in the dictionary.

Further, if you believe in 'capitalism',

Correct. I am a capitalist.

then the borders for your 'nation of one' should be going in the direction of 'as large as possible'.

Incorrect conclusion.

When a government is far away from the people it "represents", it is more difficult for one person (or anybody for that matter) to work towards change. A distant government (regardless of label) physically can not represent each individual's interests. Hence, the borders / no-borders freedom paradox: you need to erect more borders to get more freedom.

In "capitalist" terms,

big government = bad

small government = good

Simply put, it is a balance of power. Since anarchy (government of one) will never happen, the next best thing would naturally be a small association of people who cooperate. The smaller the better. True anarchy is synonmous with capitalism but we do not really have capitalism in the same way as most communist countries never really had communism.

CAVEAT: Maybe this should be a new thread entitled "Charles Anthony's application of anarchism to the real world"....

What power does a human have to be "moral" in the Fleabusiness model?

I am not sure I understand the question. The 'power to be moral' lies with each individual.

I am asking if The Flea coerces individuals to maintain its moral ideal.

Are people moral out of their own volition?

or is it imposed?

or is it required?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jul 19 2006, 08:06 AM)

then the borders for your 'nation of one' should be going in the direction of 'as large as possible'.

Incorrect conclusion.

When a government is far away from the people it "represents", it is more difficult for one person (or anybody for that matter) to work towards change. A distant government (regardless of label) physically can not represent each individual's interests. Hence, the borders / no-borders freedom paradox: you need to erect more borders to get more freedom.

Actually, I was specifically speaking of your nation (of one) growing larger. Besides, in this system 'freedom' is subjective in it's meaning...'freedom' to do what? Move from point A to Point B? Or to marry your sheep? To impose the death penalty for tresspassing?

I am asking if The Flea coerces individuals to maintain its moral ideal.

Are people moral out of their own volition?

or is it imposed?

or is it required?

People are however moral they choose to be, it cannot be imposed, only laws and punishment can. So, yes, for the last point, it can be required.

[Charles Anthony]

then the borders for your 'nation of one' should be going in the direction of 'as large as possible'.

Incorrect conclusion.

When a government is far away from the people it "represents", it is more difficult for one person (or anybody for that matter) to work towards change. A distant government (regardless of label) physically can not represent each individual's interests. Hence, the borders / no-borders freedom paradox: you need to erect more borders to get more freedom.

Actually, I was specifically speaking of your nation (of one) growing larger.

Stop. You are making a mistake.

YOU identified the nation (of one) should grow larger. I did not. I see no reason why it should.

Are you asking me to explain YOUR theory of how the nation (of one) should grow larger????

Besides, in this system 'freedom' is subjective in it's meaning...

No. It is not subjective. It is a human right within anarchy among other social organizations too.

'freedom' to do what?

In anarchy, freedom is the right to NOT be the victim of violence -- except in the case of self-defence. Plain and simple.

The anarchist concept of freedom is objective because it can only be violated by having a person commit an act of violence against you or your property. There is no subjective imposition of "to have access to" in anarchy.

I am asking if The Flea coerces individuals to maintain its moral ideal.

Are people moral out of their own volition?

or is it imposed?

or is it required?

People are however moral they choose to be, it cannot be imposed, only laws and punishment can. So, yes, for the last point, it can be required.

You are describing obedience and submission.

Morality involves what one does when the opportunity to escape punishment exists.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Stop. You are making a mistake.

YOU identified the nation (of one) should grow larger. I did not. I see no reason why it should.

Are you asking me to explain YOUR theory of how the nation (of one) should grow larger????

No, actually I am making a reference to capitalism, not 'governments', or 'nations' in the traditional sense. If you are a capitalist, then I should think that you would be compelled to build (your holdings, etc) to a larger value. I should have used the term 'more', instead of larger, I suppose. If a 'capitalist' says that they don't see a reason to 'have more', grow more, etc. the I should think that they were either lying or crazy. That is, a capitalist would never pull their money out of a good, growing investment portfolio to put it in a shoebox and say, "That's it, I've got enough".

No. It is not subjective. It is a human right within anarchy among other social organizations too.

Freedom, rights, etc. are all subjective and arbitrary. They only exist in the form of what we choose to bestow on others.

Morality involves what one does when the opportunity to escape punishment exists.

Sort of. To imply that as an absolute means that morality only can exist outside a system of laws, and I would disagree.

[Charles Anthony]

No, actually I am making a reference to capitalism, not 'governments', or 'nations' in the traditional sense.

That was not your original question which I will recopy:

Dear Charles Anthony,

I suppose a question I must ask is "To which form of 'leadership' would an libertarian anarchist most prefer to acquiesce?"

To which I answered already and explained my position.

If you are a capitalist, then I should think that you would be compelled to build (your holdings, etc) to a larger value. I should have used the term 'more', instead of larger, I suppose. If a 'capitalist' says that they don't see a reason to 'have more', grow more, etc. the I should think that they were either lying or crazy. That is, a capitalist would never pull their money out of a good, growing investment portfolio to put it in a shoebox and say, "That's it, I've got enough".

What does this have to do with your original question?

Are you asking me to justify simultaneously being a capitalist and an anarchist?

Morality involves what one does when the opportunity to escape punishment exists.

Sort of. To imply that as an absolute means that morality only can exist outside a system of laws, and I would disagree.

No it does not but before I get myself led up to The Fog Mound, I have one simple question:

Do you believe humans have free-will?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Are you asking me to justify simultaneously being a capitalist and an anarchist?

No, they go hand in hand, and both, in their purest sense, must be amoral.

Do you believe humans have free-will?

For the most part. There are 'mental defects', like OCD, which would unnaturally curtail the range of options, but I believe these disorders to be few in number.

I suppose what I mean is that your answer was not consistent. Logically, a capitalist always wants more, and an anarchist would want no laws to stand in their way. So, aiming for anything short of 'all' would be an individual, and arbitrary, decision.

[Charles Anthony]

Are you asking me to justify simultaneously being a capitalist and an anarchist?

No, they go hand in hand,

Yes.

I am relieved. For a moment there, I thought we were talking apples and oranges while walking through a vegetable patch.

and both, in their purest sense, must be amoral.

Yes. Morality is not an issue when they are pure. You know anarchy more than most people do.

I suppose what I mean is that your answer was not consistent. Logically, a capitalist always wants more, and an anarchist would want no laws to stand in their way.

Wait. This is where your understanding of anarchy (and hence its application to the real world) is lacking. There is no inconsistency.

Anarchism does not mean "no laws" but rather it means no authority in the form of coercion. An anarchist does not coerce an other person. An anarchist trades freely and willfully with people.

This is why pure anarchy is the same as pure capitalism. They both require this stringent condition.

So, aiming for anything short of 'all' would be an individual, and arbitrary, decision.

Yes.

Their aim would be anything they want.

Their end result would be a function of personal preference (arbitrary) and the physical constraints of the environment and the free market.

The anarchist and the capitalist do not have super-powers to overcome the physical constraints.

There is no inconsistency of my response to you. You asked me about my choice of imposed government given that we will never have absolute anarchy. My choice is a function of any other free market. I may want everything but the physical constraints of the world make me wise to chose to settle with something less. Where is the inconsistency?

The mistake that you are making when you say that I am preferring less over more is that we live in a HUGE combination of many different markets -- not just the market for government power. I must also base my decision on devoting energy to the market of personal freedom (and buying food and mowing the lawn and watching television and collecting comic books and whatever else I want to do). Everytime you choose one thing, it is often at the expense of not choosing an other thing. Unless, you have some confused perception of claiming ownership to everything, of course.

Why do you not look at my choice in your capitalist sense and recognize that I am choosing MORE freedom and MORE peace and LESS government?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Wait. This is where your understanding of anarchy (and hence its application to the real world) is lacking. There is no inconsistency....Anarchism does not mean "no laws" but rather it means no authority in the form of coercion. An anarchist does not coerce an other person. An anarchist trades freely and willfully with people.

Actually, I must admit to making a leap (downwards) with my choice of words. There seems to be two definitions for 'anarchy', the libertarian one and the classic definition, 'the law of the jungle'. So why would a pure capitalist choose to fetter themselves with 'morality'?

[Charles Anthony]

Actually, I must admit to making a leap (downwards) with my choice of words. There seems to be two definitions for 'anarchy', the libertarian one and the classic definition, 'the law of the jungle'.

I have defined anarchy quite simply already and there is not need to repeat stuff. That is why I continue this thread so that there is less opportunity for (perceived) confusion. Also, I have very little to add other than practical application of anarchist principles.

I do not believe that you have me confused with some Lord Of The Jungle theorist.

So why would a pure capitalist choose to fetter themselves with 'morality'?

How can anybody "fetter themselves" with morality? or anything for that matter?

You said people have free-will. Remember that question?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

You said people have free-will. Remember that question?

Indeed, morality itself implies choice. The degrees of which is largely a product of environment.

How can anybody "fetter themselves" with morality? or anything for that matter?

Well, if one believes that personal gain is tantamount, all that might slow or stop such gain would be considered an impediment. For example, in the last few years, marketing companies have pushed 'good business ethics' as the new buzzwords...but not because it is the right thing to do, their sales pitch is that "Now good business ethics can be more profitable!" It isn't because of a new found 'morality', it is a sales gimmick.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All these words are well and good, but their application to the current political realities that we find ourselves in are limited to say the least. You would be better off debating the differences between democracy and capitalism. Now those two little words have huge impact on our society. Most of us poor fools actually think we live in a democracy and work in a capitalistic society. Nothing could be further from the truth but we have been brainwashed into thinking so.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Fortin,

You would be better off debating the differences between democracy and capitalism.

They are apples and oranges, (so they cannot be compared) and don't really belong together, except by arbitrary choice. They temper each other, really.

[Charles Anthony]

All these words are well and good, but their application to the current political realities that we find ourselves in are limited to say the least.

Quite the contrary. Even though true anarchy will never be stable, anarchist principle is actually very handy when trying to determine fair policy for the real world.

The key about anarchist theory is that it holds individual freedom to be a primary virtue. Many other political theories respect freedom as well thus, sharing charateristics and conclusions with anarchy. However, since anarchy is very extreme about respecting individual freedom it is often impractical because our world constantly has people stepping on eachother's freedoms. We commonly adapt and accept it.

One other feature of anarchist principle is that it focusses exclusively on individual responsibility as well. Since only single people can do something, the anarchist does not blame anything on "society" or "Hollywood" or "young people" or any other vague concepts. Whenever somebody blames society, it really never solves anything at all. Thus, the anarchist looks deeper and puts everything on the shoulders of specific individuals. Sometimes it is very difficult but that is the challenge. Usually people blame "society" simply to run away from the problem instead of dealing with it head-on.

Anarchist principle is like one end of a scale that measures individual freedom. The opposite end of the scale would be absolute tyranny: a complete lack of freedom. Societies of all sorts generally lie somewhere in between -- we make trade-offs of freedom all of the time. Some of those trade-offs are grave injustices while others are hidden injustices like pollution. Understanding anarchist principle helps to identify ways of dealing with grey areas of public policy.

Just to illustrate how extreme and impractical true anarchy happens to be, you must understand that in an anarchist condition there is no crime. The moment somebody steals, the balance of freedom in anarchism is upset and we are no longer in anarchy. The moment somebody murders or assaults somebody else, we are no longer in anarchy. Where we are at that point does not have a name, but it is no longer anarchy. I hope you understand how this is virtually an impossible state -- nevertheless, it acts as a baseline.

To give you a very simple example of applying anarchist principle, look at Canadian federalism with respect to the independence of Quebec and Alberta. The anarchist will say: "Yes! They should separate." without even thinking because naturally, it is wrong for a population to be governed by people in Ottawa, a city that is not even in either Quebec nor Alberta. A group of people in Ottawa do not even know what happens to individuals in Alberta nor Quebec. Thus, our federalism moves down the scale towards less freedom and more control.

The reason why it is wrong is much more complicated and can be explained with other principles of political theory too. However, anarchism is simple and usually makes it easier to arrive at conclusions. Most people (whether they think about it or not, whether they care about political theory or not) want individual freedom and most people do not control other people. They want to live in peace. This is how anarchist conclusions are usually consistent with conclusions derived by people who have a natural tendency to respect human freedom.

On the lighter side of anarchy, there is a very recent article that examines the 1980's television show "The A-team" that was popular at the time.

One of the most famous sentences from the theme is the reference to a "crime they didn't commit." During the Vietnam War these soldiers were ordered by their colonel to rob a bank. After they finished their job, they found out that their headquarters were destroyed. It was impossible for them to prove that they acted as the colonel told them to. The US government, then, decided to prosecute them for the crime. Here we have another great example how positive law perverts the natural law. When the individuals acting on their own do something wrong, it is considered a "crime". But if the government engages in such a behavior, then suddenly "crime" is out of a picture. One of the famous examples is of course taxation. The state takes over people's income without their consent, but if some private individual takes someone's money without consent, he is considered a "criminal". This is a classic example of verbal law production and a Hobbesian belief that will can change or create law.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/005325.asp

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I stand corrected! Call me an anarchist from this day forward.

[Charles Anthony]

I stand corrected! Call me an anarchist from this day forward.

Come to the dark side....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Is there any room left over there?

[Charles Anthony]

Is there any room left over there?

Ha ha ha!

In fact, you will see that you are very much in the minority now!

I suggest that you do some reading on libertarianism to start. In general, libertarians are anarchists who do make room for a very small and limited role of government in society. Anarchists do not. Anarchists categorically identify all forms of government as coercion and a priori they are wrong.

When you identify yourself as an anarchist, you set yourself up for being misunderstood. There are a lot of people who say they are anarchists but in fact are socialists or communists in denial. They seem to be the great majority. They will also categorically refuse any connection between capitalism and anarchy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Liberatarianism I understand. Anarchy theory will require some looking into I guess.

[Charles Anthony]

How can anybody "fetter themselves" with morality? or anything for that matter?

Well, if one believes that personal gain is tantamount, all that might slow or stop such gain would be considered an impediment. For example, in the last few years, marketing companies have pushed 'good business ethics' as the new buzzwords...but not because it is the right thing to do, their sales pitch is that "Now good business ethics can be more profitable!" It isn't because of a new found 'morality', it is a sales gimmick.

It is finally clear to me now.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Just to illustrate how extreme and impractical true anarchy happens to be, you must understand that in an anarchist condition there is no crime. The moment somebody steals, the balance of freedom in anarchism is upset and we are no longer in anarchy. The moment somebody murders or assaults somebody else, we are no longer in anarchy. Where we are at that point does not have a name, but it is no longer anarchy.

Actually, it does have a name, and it is called 'anarchy'. You just seem to be in a minority of those who shun the popular definition in favour of another.

in an anarchist condition there is no crime

There would be no 'crime' because there would be no law. If you think this 'state' has no name, perhaps you could convince people it should have one, 'chaos', for example, and then convince the majority of people that they misunderstand the classic definition of 'anarchy'.

I would venture that BHS shares the 'common mistake of the definition of anarchy', and perhaps has coined the new name for that which is missing...

Dear BHS,

QUOTE

Balls to the wall anarchy.

Ah yes, the fastest and most exciting way to personal gain.

All legal and ownership disputes settled by the law offices of "Gimme, Gimme and Blam!".

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....indpost&p=67788

An example of 'anarchy' (and not libertarianism) being practically applied...

The Lone Flea at a computer joins an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters to unlock the secret meaning of life.

Indeed, here we are...

Interestingly, some 'scientists' somehow received a grant to study the 'thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters' conundrum...they found that the typewriters were used as weapons, toys to be hurled, and finally as a toilet. I don't believe the name 'Yorick' ever appeared.

[Charles Anthony]

I don't believe the name 'Yorick' ever appeared.

Alas, Hamlet spoke to himself and said something even more profound before he discovered the court jester's skull.