A Logical Case for Anarchism

Phihilosophers L. A. Rollins (The Myth of Natural Rights) and George H. Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God) found that a philosophical case for anarchism goes back at least as far as John Locke in 1690 in The Second Treatise on Government where he said "...no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself." Slightly later, in 1698 in Discourses Concerning Government , Algernon Sidney said "This will be evident to all who consider, that no man can confer upon others that which he has not in himself.". And still later, in a letter to Thomas Bayard in 1882, anarchist/abolitionist Lysander Spooner stated "No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of arbitrary dominion over a third person..."
Followed to it's logical conclusion this concept would endorse individual sovereignty and anarchism-- the end of big government and the US Empire. If this concept is both logical and ethical, which no one has yet refuted, let freedom ring.

 

If this is the most logical case anyone can come up with for anarchism, I think that says something.

 

Nobody can give away more power than they have. It is a collective of people giving away a smalls portion of their power that grossly empowers anyone. And we can give each other power over others. If I wanna throw feces in the community's river, are you saying nothing should be done about it? Sure you could be free, unrestrained, unhibited souls with salmonella and a bunch of other diseases.

Plus, I believe that systems tend to have to impose control upon a organisms, and that life is largely about control. A little anarchist society could be heaven, until an "enslaved" society with a giant professional army whipes you out. Self-sufficiency, lack of forced organization, all that is cool if you're a Japanese island before the era of wind sails. But in the real world those types of societies either choose to die or join the big guns. Just look at the Native Americans. Also going by anarchist principles you're only going to become so powerful and technologically advanced, because a system needs strong stability to advance.

There's a valid argument against every philosophy out there...............

 

~

 

What are the goals and concerns for the society with a preffessional army that requires large weapons? Would it be fair to say they care little for who are sacrificed and left behind for the greater good? Or would the potential of the society be reduce to meet the needs of those who could not carry there own? Anarchy applied to today's situation would require time to find its balance, although once achieved, an individual would be require to be considerably self sufficient. Drinking the water contaminated with feces could be a terrible fate for many sharing the water source. A choice made by each, whether or not to drink in the first place. The overall point is this; the goals of an anarchist society would be purely for self improvement. Not necessarily the same motives of a corrupt leader with a lust for bloodshed and slave labour.

 

Actually, I believe the earliest case against the State is from Etienne de la Boetie, in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (Discours de la servitude volontaire), which was written in 1552.

 

silly argument

power is not measurable, so how can one know what one has?

and how is power even defined? is it created, for example, when one kills someone more powerful?

money is measurable, and one can easily give away more than one has

[though one might eventually wind up in jail for that]

 

That's a hard one, but I could venture a guess....How about protecting the citizens from Hitler's ruthless Army.

And, how's that gonna work out for your grandma?

Ooo...Tough choice, drink contaminated water and die, or die from thirst. At least one has freedom of choice.

.

 

Government going after those weaker to impose power and rule upon them. In an entirely anarchistic world, not likely to happen large scale.

The community provides for those who cannot, as long as they put forth something into the system. Such as cooking, sewing, they could be librarians, anything that fulfills a societal need. Also, anyone who works within the society can support them with the work applied.

Easy solution. Build a large scale water purifier. Not hard. Goes with the self sustainability.

 

But you've got to have the water.


From the rhyme of the ancient mariner: "water , water everywhere... nor any drop to drink."

 

Man as matter has three properties, absorptive, reflective, and polarity.
Whereas no man can confer upon others that which he has not in himself, men can make agreements. Governmental systems are the agreement to have them be, governmental systems. If it is a comfort to you to rely on a friend, you have already endorsed an expectation for communal behavior.

 

Let's not have this argument devolve into debating petty specifics. Sure, someone can shit in the water and that wouldn't be good, we all can agree on that.

But the bigger question is what is it that impels someone to shit in a river in the first place? Perhaps a system where one feels so hopeless and powerless that they feel no accountability for their actions and just dont care, like one we live under now. Something people overlook is that if you give someone the trust that they will make the right choice, even a person you have doubts about, they will more often than not astound you by doing the right thing. Morality cannot be dictated from the top. As Thoreau says (to paraphrase) we wouldn't all be given consciences and the free will to use them if that was the case.

Now, there's the way things are and the way we feel they ought to be; the goal is to narrow this discrepancy. The world right now is based on a hierarchical pyramid of fear and control, whereas I and many others feel that the sort of society most conducive to human happiness is one with the greatest amount of individual freedom, like anarchism. Like Tsurugi said above, this monstrous machine we call western culture has, like a virus, eliminated other cultures around the world that focused their energies on human fulfillment instead of material wealth. And here we are nowadays, replete with ipods and tvs and facebook, and totally slaves to it. Are we truly happier now than, say 300 years ago? Once a global critical mass of people saying NO has been reached, this matrix can be taken down but until then, if socialistic anarchy took hold in only one region all other countries (read: rich people) will quickly invade and squelch it, like whats always happened to revolutions throughout history.

 

Not in the third world which is like America in the seventies at best. And communal behaviour is much about love as war. At worst the third world is like the good will of pre-industrialism. But good is relative for what I mean in this dialogue.

 

We might wonder why people shit in the water, but the fact is that they do, in many ways and for many reasons, and until someone has a magic cure for it, we need people to stop the water becoming a cesspool.

Of course, we have to make sure those people aren't stopping you from shitting in the water so that when they shit in the water, it's less noticable.

 

Really we have hospitals, though I believe you are talking ostensibly.

Yaah, like in Iraq, we have hospitals.

 

"We might wonder why people shit in the water, but the fact is that they do, in many ways and for many reasons, and until someone has a magic cure for it, we need people to stop the water becoming a cesspool."

The cure isn't magic; it's quite simple, if a bit granfalloonish. It's called love, love for yourself, your fellow man, the earth we are all a part of.

The magic part is in trying to help people unfold this potential, to have their higher selves blossom with virtue while their egotistical, reptilian part of their brains shrinks back to its proper proportion.

Yea, what I'm talkin about is fantastical and probably needs a few magic bullets, but I'm under the impression that even the remotest chance of it happening is worthy enough for me to devote my energies towards bringing it about.

 

Yeah, you know what's going to happen when you and your love for fellow man replaces all common sense?

http://www.stormfront.org/

That's what will happen, sucker.

(also, did you SERIOUSLY just say "petty specifics"? The specifics, like all the white nationalists with armories large enough to supply a full blown militia in their basements, hellbent on exterminating YOU)

Anarchy is BEYOND idealism, it's foolishness. I sympathize but do not agree. I sympathize with them because I see their movement from the outside. It's a whiplash effect, caused by too much authority, causing people to want to abolish ALL authority, basically because they themselves have none. This is why if you read their stuff, groups like crimethINC bitch and moan about how people don't EVER stay with the movement for even a decade, that's why the movement stays the size it is, in different countries. It's a reaction to the amount of authority in the country, but people grow up, move on, and try to fix things through LOGIC, instead of WISHING.

 

I think this is a poor goal to have. A better one would be to familiarize yourself with the way things are. Trying to bridge the gap between our model of good and what is real is a focus on compliance as opposed to a focus on understanding. This seriously compromises situational awareness. We could always discover human being anew in every moment.

 

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
but I am not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
and the world will live as one."

@thedope, I used to agree while reading heavily from krishnamurti, but now i feel like understanding isn't enough,that, like Gandhi said, we should "Be the change you wish to see in the world." Isn't the purpose of understanding to accept what cannot be changed and have the balls and know-how to affect what you can?

@RooR, the same kind of hate you describe that inspires neonazis also gives our current state of things the legs to keep the status quo going. Let me explain myself. If, hypothetically this second, all governments and institutional-control org. were to just dissappear, then yes I'd think there would be mass destruction and sadness. This is because we'd have the mindsets equivalent to toddlers throwing me-me-me tantrums, in an age where we throw not baby fists but nukes. We're not ready for the freedom of anarchy yet, as we've lived our whole lives under the thumb of someone tellin us what to do. Let me pose a hypothetical: if everyone had as much empathy for their fellow man as, say Mother Theresa, would you still think we'd need guys with guns telling us to not defecate in the water supply?

 

Heh, we already live as one, If you pay attention you may see that.

All expressions are maximal, there are no idle thoughts.