Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Not all philosophy is playing games, but I'm still tempted to think that Sturgeon's Law does apply.

Through my first several years of college, I pursued philosophy rather heavily. I got disappointed when I realized that the premises underlying most philosophical systems were often cultural biases or wishful thinking. It is one thing to say there is a right to live without coercion. It is another thing to say that man is a social animal that forms groups, acquires territory, selects leaders, and makes rules. A right to live free of coercion... what evidence does one have to support that it exists? How could one begin to prove such a right in any objective sense? On the other hand, one can study human behavior.

Thus, I switched my emphasis to writers like Robert Audrey, Conrad Lorentz, Toffler, Toynbee, Strauss and Howe. I would like to see an understanding of human kind based more on emperical observation.

Thus, just from my approach to understanding human kind, I am not as appreciative of the high philosophical approach as many.



As an approach to focusing discussions of the merits of libertarianism and anarchism into one place, this thread is a great success. For a while it was very difficult to discuss any subject on any thread without high risk of diversion.

I think many of the 'statists' are still reacting to the diversions. If the anarchists and libertarians are not yet ready for prime time, the statists are. We see immediate problems that must be solved now. These statist solutions have been frequently rejected by the anarchists on abstract theoretical bounds without alternate solutions being suggested.

There is a common wisdom expressed in many ways. Fish or cut bait. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

I can't really object to abstract philosophy. I see philosophy as a way to explore problems that are not yet approachable by observation or experiment. When one has no way to ask questions about a field that can be shown to be true or false, one is stuck with a philosophical approach. Sometimes something useful comes out of the philosophy. Personally, I would rather lean hard towards asking questions that can be shown to be true or false. That is what draws me to theories of history such as turning theory, Toffler's waves of civilization, or Toynbee's slow cycles of civilizations.

Thus, I seem to be working harder to propose ways anarchy might possibly grow and spread than the anarchists. I don't see anything desirable or likely, but I'd still like to impose a shadow of reality on the pie in the sky.

So long as this thread reduces the need for the anarchists to spam abstract philosophy onto threads attempting to be grounded and practical, this thread is serving a useful purpose. If the statists are talking about todays problems and proposing practical solutions, I'm not liking said solutions being rejected on the grounds of a philosophical system that cannot provide alternate approaches.

Good post and I agree. I prefer the empirical and quantifiable to fuzzy metaphysical entities like "natural rights". How people actually behave. How societies actually function. Inane nit-picking over what is and is not a "state" and what is or is not "coercion" misses the point completely. I am far more concerned with dealing with concrete problems

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Switzerland popped into my head earlier today while I was pondering this question. I wonder how either the democrats or the anarcho-libertarians would see that country?

I like the Swiss model of government, I don't like their socially conservative streak (women couldn't vote until the 1970s, for example) and their enabling of tax evasion.

Their militia system is interesting and an aspect of the Swiss way of doing things I really like.

Kurt
when I said

Maybe Kurt Horner is right and all the good ideas have not yet been seen. I certainly hope not.

I meant I hope we have NOT yet seen all the good ideas. Clumsy on my part.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

OK. There is a list of anarchist communities on Wikipedia. The most interesting examples, IMO, are medieval Iceland, Anarchist Spain, and modern-day Somalia (which is not listed for various reasons). I've also been to Freetown Christiania. Surprisingly, I managed not to get killed!

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

So modern Somalia is the shining light in the contemporary world as the anarchist haven?

Nuff said.

Originally Posted by independent

Somalia is, if anything, a reminder of the consequences of imperialism. We're in the process of invading again, so let me know how that works out for them.

OK. You have listed modern Somalia as both an interesting example of anarchy and a reminder of the consequences of imperialism. I can see how both descriptions have some validity.

I would assume that if you were interested in creating a modern anarchist state, Somalia wouldn't be the base model you'd choose as a guideline for building your city on a hill? I can see how after repeated requests for examples of real world benevolent anarchy, HM would not be impressed by Somalia as an example of how well anarchy works. I don't really blame him for sneering at your choice. Still, am I correct in saying Somalia is not really your idea of anarchist utopia?

***

I was watching a PBS review of the current situation in Afghanistan. They had a Harvard professor on who had a really unusual idea of how to learn about a given country. Instead of visiting the capitol for a few days of high level meetings, he spent a year on foot walking from village to village, talking to the residents, and learning about how the society is actually working on a bottom up level.

OK, let's take it for granted the villages are for the most part very very poor. From there, you add three elements coming from outside the village. The Americans are flying helicopters and fighters about, blowing away any sizable gathering of natives outside of a village. The villagers kind of hope the Americans will go away and stop doing that. Then, the Taliban comes around from time to time trying to advocate strict religious law and oppress the women. The villagers kind of hope the Taliban will go away and stop doing that. He described the representatives of the central Afghan government as very corrupt. He wasn't very clear exactly what the central government does when they show up at a remote village, but he gave the impression that the villagers hope they will go away and stop doing whatever it is.

That professor came a lot closer to convincing me that anarchy is a good thing than any of the high abstract philosophy I've seen on these forums. The problem is how one gets from here to there. How do you get all three groups of statists to just go away?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

That professor came a lot closer to convincing me that anarchy is a good thing than any of the high abstract philosophy I've seen on these forums. The problem is how one gets from here to there. How do you get all three groups of statists to just go away?

Maybe you just have to be willing to wait them out. It seemed to work in Vietnam. Heck, it worked for the American colonists.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The problem is how one gets from here to there. How do you get all three groups of statists to just go away?

Kiff is bang-on right. There's a quote from de la Boétie, "Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself."

Without support from the people, tyranny falls of its own weight. The idea, then, lies not in revolution-of-politics, but in emancipation-of-minds. Political revolution prior to widespread societal preparedness has a rather long history of ending not well...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Kiff is bang-on right. There's a quote from de la Boétie, "Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself."

Without support from the people, tyranny falls of its own weight. The idea, then, lies not in revolution-of-politics, but in emancipation-of-minds. Political revolution prior to widespread societal preparedness has a rather long history of ending not well...

Tyrant? Enslavement?

What is it with you guys (and gals - Rand had to be one of the worst) and this apocalyptic thinking?

Think about it. Isn't it really just a derivative of the 'magical thinking' that you so often rail against?

Is it because you're now back in the USA and are going to have to pay taxes again - now that you can't just bribe the Russian tax police?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Tyrant? Enslavement?

What is it with you guys (and gals - Rand had to be one of the worst) and this apocalyptic thinking?

Think about it. Isn't it really just a derivative of the 'magical thinking' that you so often rail against?

Is it because you're now back in the USA and are going to have to pay taxes again - now that you can't just bribe the Russian tax police?

Nah, it's high-tech hyperbolic histrionics. Though I suppose if they didn't use such language it wouldn't have quite the impact.

Kind of the flip side to false consciousness.

You really ARE oppressed, even though you refuse to acknowledge it!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Tyrant? Enslavement?

What is it with you guys (and gals - Rand had to be one of the worst) and this apocalyptic thinking?

Think about it. Isn't it really just a derivative of the 'magical thinking' that you so often rail against?

Is it because you're now back in the USA and are going to have to pay taxes again - now that you can't just bribe the Russian tax police?

I know it's cliched, but it reminds me of a teen telling his/her parents "you're not the boss of ME!!!"

Originally Posted by Odin

I know it's cliched, but it reminds me of a teen telling his/her parents "you're not the boss of ME!!!"

Which would, of course, be absurd -- were your rulers to be legitimately equated with your parents...

Of course, thankfully that bit of fallacious reasoning started falling out of favor sometime 3-4 hundred years ago.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Nah, it's high-tech hyperbolic histrionics. Though I suppose if they didn't use such language it wouldn't have quite the impact.

Kind of the flip side to false consciousness.

You really ARE oppressed, even though you refuse to acknowledge it!

Its just screams sooooo '80s!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8

Maybe its a Nomad thing
- pretty handy though if the right (pun intended) thing comes along - maybe if Cheney get elected Commander and Chief in 2012? Eek! In that case, I be fine with either Justin or Kurt next to my foxhole.

There are very real and very understandable reasons why the language of Justin and others of that persuasion so strongly resembles the adolescent seeking to declare their independence of their own parents while living under their parents roof, eating their food and existing because of their largesse. That pretty much describes the anarcho-libertarian right now.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

That professor came a lot closer to convincing me that anarchy is a good thing than any of the high abstract philosophy I've seen on these forums. The problem is how one gets from here to there. How do you get all three groups of statists to just go away?

Sometimes you just need data from another source or in another form. I didn't always think that income inequality indicated deep economic problems, but my experience with large companies made me wonder how they could even stay in business. Add to that personal experience a little reading from left-wing sources and my views changed. Income distribution is not irrelevant at all, its an indicator of just how skewed the playing field really is.

So, I want to build on this observation about the Afghan villagers. The situation they face is that not only do these three groups persist, but none of them really run the show either. They all pass through, take tribute or wreak havoc and then move on. The state is the situation that occurs when there is a dominant violent group. Once dominant, they no longer need to be quite so brutal, mere threats will suffice. I'm sure those villagers were much better off on average when the Taliban had largely uncontested control. Similarly things were probably quite stable in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion and they would also be stable if the Kabul government ever truly won. So, you could argue that as bad as states are it's still better than not having one.

However, the chaos is not because there isn't a state in Afghanistan, it's because several groups are fighting over the opportunity to create one. The conflict isn't driven by the lack of a winner; it's driven by the value of the prize to be won.

So, now I can answer your question. The villagers win when the possible gain from forming a state over them is less than the cost of creating that state and when that cost-benefit analysis is clear to all parties. It's very easy for those villagers to wait for one faction to win and then just pretend they supported those guys all along. The factions know this. They know that the villagers will (mostly) give in as soon as they win. The way to change this paradigm is to spread the idea of passively resisting anyone who attempts to rule over you. Once this idea is widespread and publicly known, there will be much less incentive to create an organization like a state.

So, the short answer is: education, solidarity and time.

In a country without a state, you want to get as many people as possible to refuse to assent to any of the vying factions. In a country with a state, you want to get as many people as possible to find ways around the state's rules (which may include getting them repealed in an official fashion). But in either case, the goal is to make as much of one's life voluntary as one possibly can and be open about that. Anarchism (or voluntarism, to use a less charged label) cannot be promoted by hermits.

There is one thing that makes victory hard for those Afghan villagers. It is very likely that the goal for one faction, the Americans, is not to gain dominance. Rather, the U.S. is maintaining its dominance over its own people by demonstrating its ability to defeat other violent rivals. Typically, this sort of situation results in the villagers having sympathy with whomever will attack the imperial power -- in this case probably the Taliban. Two things combined can break this cycle. First, advanced communication will enable people in such situations to be aware of what people are saying about them in the rest of the world, even inside the imperial country itself. Second, if there are enough people within the imperial country denouncing those actions, then the Taliban (or its equivalent) will not be appealing. Instead the villagers can echo and amplify the sentiments of the antiwar elements of the imperial country and make a withdrawal occur without making that devil's bargain with the local warlords to push out the invaders.

So, the even more specific and practical answer is to spread laptops, cell phones and cheap communications relays all over the world. Thus, the ability of states to project power will diminish, as will their ability to justify violence among their own population since it will be increasingly difficult to think of that Afghan village as somewhere far away and unimportant.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

The world we live in today is radically different in almost every way from past historical eras. Failure to recognize that reality reduces one to using such absurd examples as medieval Iceland in a discussion if anarcho libertarianism has a chance in todays modern world. When the best you can do is medieval Iceland, you might as well throw in the towel.

Maybe Kurt Horner is right and all the good ideas have not yet been seen. I certainly hope not. Sadly, we know the idea of anarcho-libertarianism and its not one of those miracle advancements on the horizon be it near or distant.

Some of the potentially-dangerous technologies that we have (weapons, electricity, petroleum, automobiles, narcotics, strong chemicals) and potential for human abuse (mass media) necessitate government regulation. Ancient and medieval (Iceland, Switzerland) democracies implied that the state would be responsive to people, and such a "primitive" democracy as that of the Iroquois Confederation had democracy which would have had meaning only if the decisions made by democratic choice could be imposed upon those who voted "no". Complex society requires government services just to keep people from falling into destitution and to protect property rights and some minimum of public safety.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which would, of course, be absurd -- were your rulers to be legitimately equated with your parents...

Of course, thankfully that bit of fallacious reasoning started falling out of favor sometime 3-4 hundred years ago.

I don't believe the equivalence is strong, but there are crude correspondences. Both governments and parents nurture and protect. Both children and citizens have rights. Both children and citizens have duties.

What I am noting is that as civilization has developed, as technology and shifting political systems makes life more pleasant, individuals seem to be claiming more rights and trying to weasel out of more duties. To some degree this is desirable and proper. Older governments did tend to prey upon both their neighbors and their own people.

But there are times when the anarchists seem to be advocating infinite rights and no responsibilities. No one can make an anarchist take out the trash or wash the dishes. I do like freedom. I'm not particularly crazy about obligations that others might deem to be duties. Too often the duties imposed by states benefit the ruling class more than The People. Still, I'm not sure the freedom to duty ratio ought to go infinite quite yet.

Bob has hit upon something here. There is now, and has been for a while, a tendency to focus far more on rights and far less on responsibilities and duties. I distinctly remember taking high school government back in 1966-67 and I had a teacher who stressed both as equal halves of the same coin. I was a rebellious teen who did not want to hear about my duties or responsibilities to society and only wanted to know about my rights, my freedoms, my privileges, me me me me. I would suspect I was not alone given that era and my age.

Hopefully, as we all mature, we put the me me me me behind us and learn to appreciate the balance between rights and responsibilities. It makes for a much healthier individual and in turn a much healthier society.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Bob has hit upon something here. There is now, and has been for a while, a tendency to focus far more on rights and far less on responsibilities and duties. ...Hopefully, as we all mature, we put the me me me me behind us and learn to appreciate the balance between rights and responsibilities. It makes for a much healthier individual and in turn a much healthier society.

I agree with you and Bob on this. Balance is good.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I don't believe the equivalence is strong, but there are crude correspondences. Both governments and parents nurture and protect. Both children and citizens have rights. Both children and citizens have duties.

They also both metabolize oxygen and fuel into CO2. And perceive a certain spectrum of light.

But their differences are rather fundamental to the question of equating them. The biggest, of course, being that children are the product of their parents; whereas in any situation (and/or to whatever degree) the relationship is completely reversed between citizens and states. There's also the fact that childhood is a temporary state -- existing for the sake primarily of the child's development to the point where it is no longer needed, and focused in large part on keeping that development going. That is, the goal of both parties in the parent-child (at least in the context of giver/receiver of order) relationship is to make it obsolete. Whereas the state-citizen is intended to be perpetual.

But there are times when the anarchists seem to be advocating infinite rights and no responsibilities.

I think the vast majority of those instances, you will find, occur in the minds of people who don't listen to what anarchists are saying. 'Responsibility' arises from the individual accepting a social context. Since our only natural environment is social, responsibility necessarily follows. This is wholly in line with the fundamentally human-nature-based anarchist worldview.

We find that a lot of the objections people have are made-up ones; although imaginary constructs have ever been an effective force to keep people from actually studying things.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I think the vast majority of those instances, you will find, occur in the minds of people who don't listen to what anarchists are saying. 'Responsibility' arises from the individual accepting a social context. Since our only natural environment is social, responsibility necessarily follows. This is wholly in line with the fundamentally human-nature-based anarchist worldview.

We find that a lot of the objections people have are made-up ones; although imaginary constructs have ever been an effective force to keep people from actually studying things.

Rather than people who "don't listen to what anarchists are saying", I feel its people who have heard what the anarchist has said, has thought through their position, has then thought about the consequences of such ideas, and then utterly rejects what the anarchist is saying. It is the consequences of anarchist and libertarian ideas that are the bug turn-off since they would destroy society.

I always find it amusing - not only on this board but on many others - the True Believers have such faith in their beliefs that their ultimate comeback against those who disagree with them is a variation of "you did not read what I wrote", or "you are not listening", or "you are too stupid to understand". The clear implication being that their positions are so righteous, logical and correct that anyone who continues to disagree after they have posted must be blind, deaf or stupid because everybody simply must see it the way that they see things.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Rather than people who "don't listen to what anarchists are saying", I feel it[']s people who have heard what the anarchist has said, ha[ve] thought through their position, ha[ve] then thought about the consequences of such ideas, and then utterly reject[] what the anarchist is saying.

As amusing as the feelings of the uninformed can be, they don't really add anything of value to a reasoned discussion.

The reality of things is that, the specific, concrete statements Bob (in this case, though he's far from the only person) was making about anarchism were demonstrably not about any form of anarchism. So, what he was objecting to was something other than what he though.

A pedantic, wordy bloviator () our Mr. Butler may be... but he does display a propensity to assess new facts and adjust any of his opinions which turn out to be at variance with them. I don't know that his mind has been visibly changed on this forum at least, but his positions have been at least modified as justified. That's all one should ever expect from an intellectually honest person.

Justin,

You guys do sometimes come across as modern-day Gnostics.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I always find it amusing - not only on this board but on many others - the True Believers have such faith in their beliefs that their ultimate comeback against those who disagree with them is a variation of "you did not read what I wrote", or "you are not listening", or "you are too stupid to understand". The clear implication being that their positions are so righteous, logical and correct that anyone who continues to disagree after they have posted must be blind, deaf or stupid because everybody simply must see it the way that they see things.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

A pedantic, wordy bloviator () our Mr. Butler may be... but he does display a propensity to assess new facts and adjust any of his opinions which turn out to be at variance with them. I don't know that his mind has been visibly changed on this forum at least, but his positions have been at least modified as justified. That's all one should ever expect from an intellectually honest person.

Originally Posted by The Free Dictionary

bloviate : To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner

Just entirely as an aside, here we are talking about values clash. When one gets into politics and religion, one often deals with basic core understandings of how the universe works. To many, if the theories and doctrines conflict with the facts and evidence, the temptation is to find an excuse to disregard the evidence. It is very hard for humans to reevaluate their own world views and values. Many humans can't.

Thus, the above comment from Justin has been accepted as high praise. I would quibble with it a bit. By the standard Justin sets, there are not all that many intellectually honest people. More people than not are values locked.

Too many of us here are bloviators. To many of us here believe themselves to be "so righteous, logical and correct that anyone who continues to disagree after they have posted must be blind, deaf or stupid because everybody simply must see it the way that they see things." I see this as the normal way that people think. It is not unique to the left or the right, to anarchists or statists, to Republicans or Democrats. The norm of political discussion here and elsewhere involves an absurdly stubborn clinging to particular models of how humans behave. Few (if anyone) are able to shake it. The notion that the other faction are all bloviators while one's own faction is clear eyed and rational should be assumed to be a illusion (delusion) that is a feature (bug) of the normal human thinking process.

Have I got the same problem? Yep. Do I think it possible to change anyone else's base values? Highly unlikely. Are there others who are 'intellectually honest,' by Justin's definition, who can "display a propensity to assess new facts and adjust any of his opinions which turn out to be at variance with them"? Yes. Just don't ask me to give a lot of examples.

But getting back to the Anarchist / Libertarian discussion, we can tie the above to the difference between the anarchists tending to stay with high philosophy, and resisting giving specific examples of the society they approve of, or paths as how to achieve their ends. I've the impression they are living in a world of values. Myself and other 'statists' have been trying to drag them kicking and screaming into a world of facts, into a world where one can present propositions that might be proven true of false through observation or experiment. Thus, I worked the several dozen examples of anarchy from Wiki into several approaches to how anarchy might be made to work in the real world. Thus, I reviewed the situation in Afghanistan, and sympathized with how a villager might want all three groups of statists to just go away.

I'm not getting very far attempting to anchor in reality. Well, Kurt suggested improved education and communications. If everyone were exposed to anarchist / libertarian values, the problem would fade. This reminds me a bit of the US doctrine of teaching everyone democracy. If one teaches them proper democratic values, the problem would fade. The Taliban, of course, think the answer would involve the villagers living closer to the teachings of Islam. Only through Allah will the problem fade.

I've no magic wand to wave. I'd just suggest that values shifts aren't apt to happen all that easily. I don't know that the typical Afghan villager will be more inclined to reevaluate his value system than we are.

And we are inclined to reevaluate our value systems hardly at all. This thread is more an example of values clash paralysis than an example of reason or communication.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Justin,

You guys do sometimes come across as modern-day Gnostics.

Fair enough (though who among us doesn't, sometimes?). But people who engage with us like yourselves find out that such appearances are deceiving.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Thus, the above comment ... has been accepted as high praise. I would quibble with it a bit.

That's the kind of thing that makes you awesome.

I've no magic wand to wave. I'd just suggest that values shifts aren't apt to happen all that easily. I don't know that the typical Afghan villager will be more inclined to reevaluate his value system than we are.

I might point out that it is primarily the anarchist posters here who are skeptical of magic wands, and the statists who keep insisting that we show them the ones we supposedly intend to use.

I might, but I won't.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fair enough (though who among us doesn't, sometimes?). But people who engage with us like yourselves find out that such appearances are deceiving.

We will have to have a beer when I come to Oregon. Looks like I'll be staying here for a couple of nights.