Anarchism is Flawed (Here's Why)



so about 15 years ago Stephane Manu wrote an article called the stateless society and examination of alternatives which is linked in the description archives of course in which he tries to sort of shill for an anarchist society in his very very bad article I have to say it is you read it and everything is nothing but assertion and assumption and I understand that because an anarchist state has never existed unless you want to include tried the sort of tribalism of of primitive peoples but there's always a pecking order the idea that you're not going to the idea that someone who is stronger smarter and more charismatic than the majority of people around them and who is capable of the coddling together a following is not going to take over in the absence of a state is quite it's it's a foolish idea now he starts off with talking about the the bloody genocide of the 20th century of course communism of fashion that fascism now it's very interesting that Manu I don't know if he was an atheist in 2005 but he is an atheist and he doesn't mention and very few people do actually and this is not a blame on all atheists because I know most atheists don't kill people but they never mentioned that communism and fascism were atheistic ideologies they were socialistic ideologies they were secular ideologies and they are actually ultimately the result of Anarchy communism and fascism is what you will get in some form if you if you try to create an anarchist society I was gonna say state but that that's sort of slightly redundant now it is you know every thing is that every every criticism Manu has of government overtake and he has a few bullet points here where children go to school interest rates value of currency doctors medical procedures war who can live in a country those sorts of things now he makes this about personal liberty and I still I've talked about this before when I talk about anarchism I still asked the question why is personal liberty morally good and not morally neutral but morally good as opposed to the state why is the state not but why is personal liberty not morally neutral it is presented that's the problem I have of libertarianism personal liberty is presented as a good rather than as a neutral in other words if I have personal liberty can't i encroach on other people's liberty for instance if I am free if I'm a free agent can't I take a gun shoot someone isn't that possible through personal liberty so personal weapon and now you could say well that's not Liberty that's an abuse but I still have the physical freedom to do so not obviously the moral freedom but the physical freedom so he's right in his and what he proposes as the problem yes I agree the Constitution does not impede state control or state expansion that's obviously true no state has ever been contained that's also true but the but this is again I've always I've said this what this is a problem of human nature this is what the anarchists and libertarians do not understand fundamentally that the problem you see in government is not because of government or because of government overreach it is because human beings have a desire to do evil we love the forbidden we are fascinated by it and when we gain power we are corrupted by it the state is not corrupted by it any entity is corrupted by too much power the fact that the state has been the main source of bloodshed and evil and and and etc etc throughout history is proof that power corrupts human beings you see and to simply say the state the state is a collection of human beings with power ultimately it is individual human beings with power the fact that someone has government authority let's say does not impute to them some sort of ontological change in their soul or something where they they suddenly become different it takes on a it is is a mental phenomenon concepts only exist in the mind the government is a concept it exists in reality as a true society but it is not ultimately in the individual extrapolated from the metaphysical ultimately is something that gets into the mind and corrupts the individual that is ultimately like even many individuals let's say if you have let's say multiple people in government which most governments have obviously multiple individuals even if it is absolute monarchy I mean they're the people who do this now he goes through three he thinks there are three central points that people when they attack and our kisum go for dispute resolution collective services and pollution now I don't know why these are the the main three I would strongly disagree there are many many other problems and these are the only ones he goes through and I find that to be problematic because it doesn't address other questions the main question is for an instance dispute resolution he says here the he sort of answers the question of private companies replacing the state and he says this is a superstitious fear because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political state yes define because there is no example of any society not having some sort of a government so how could a private company over replace the political state when there's already one and always has been in every society of some kind and look at it like say say native Indian tribes let's take them they didn't have a sort of they had a government but it was less let's say less formalistic perhaps it was much more guerrilla like and they're very brutal and and tribus right a primitive even that it has all of the elements of government the three obvious elements of government are the ability to make laws the ability to enforce laws and the ability to judge whether people have in fact broken or abided by the law so the ability to judge that this is obviously seen very starkly in our own political system the ability to to the executive branch which enforces and punishes the or that enforces and and punishes by you in the interim then you have the judicial which in fact sentences not just punishes but sentences and then the legislative which makes the laws which are enforced and judged and sentenced upon and he has this idea of a of a dispute resolution organization DRO and he says if that if that dro as it collapses somehow transforms itself into a group of secretary statisticians accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia successfully takes over society and how unlikely is that and such a state will then be imposed on the general population however there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario first of all if even dro can take over society impose itself as a new state why only a dro when at the Rotary Club Union Mafia YMCA SPCA Society to them ban on groups clearly that is not a feasible solution society must live with a risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group now he says it's unlikely it's a scare scenario you have merely asked a rhetorical question you you and this is something let me say this this is why I don't like Manu I like that some of the things at but ultimately it is nothing but rhetoric it's like okay it's unlikely why is it unlikely this is something that has never existed and never will because human beings are hierarchical why wouldn't this happen revolutions have taken over government before yes and some of those people are probably accountants and farmers what do you think the French Revolution was do you think all those people were elites who were fighting in the in the army to overthrow the Catholic monarchy or do you think all of the people fighting the the American Revolution on either the British or the American side were all at leadest they were all aristocrats or all intellectual colonialists no they were farmers and and hired hands and some some freed slaves of the you know the this is just completely not not in other words it is incumbent on Manu to prove his case not incumbent on me to because government exists it exists in every society and always has in some primitive or non primitive form a formalistic or not so it every society every group of people has a organization within itself that can do those three things legislate enforce and judge and to greater degrees it's like okay you're the Boy Scout Troop cannot put you in jail but he can expel you it makes the bylaws it can enforce the bylaws and if you don't obey it it can't put you in jail but it expels you so every group has now that doesn't make every group the state but there is in every society a group which is tasked specifically with the general legislation enforcement and judging of what society based on how it how is composed what is in fact correct what is in fact moral what is in fact necessary and to say that such a system would not occur is dismissing something very important you can't just say well it's very unlikely why is it not unlikely if I'm someone who wants power ultimately why wouldn't I take the opportunity to declare myself dictator why wouldn't I do that what why what stops me from if I'm a very charismatic and intellectual individual and I have a strong following a very good organization why wouldn't I do that if I'm of an evil mind of I'm malevolent he doesn't address the altar again this is ultimately a denial of human nature he thinks that we're all just sort of going to get along in this sort of hobbit-like Shire it is ultimately delusional now I'm not saying government is perfect I'm not saying it isn't all the things that says it is it clearly is but but there is no alternative ultimately and you would end up with the same problems and he talks he says here for instance he says it's important to remember that dro is much like cell phone companies and air providers only prosper if they cooperates how these new are only makes money if Sally does not pollute augments insurer also only makes money if Sally does not pollute does the two companies share a common goal which fosters cooperation again why why do these people have to cooperate what keeps them cooperating now again you could say a government doesn't do that but that's not the point he is proposing this as an alternative to government overtake but you're clearly ending up with the same problems now you can say those problems will occur that doesn't make it so and of course why should I believe you what like there's never pins such as there's never been such a system before why do I do why should I believe that it would would in fact occur so ultimately and again I an anarchist they possess the we people who believe in government whatever kind it is like I'm not saying government is like you know the amazing and they're all angels but we have the benefit of doubt they have the burden of proof you have to prove to me you can't say oh well it's unlikely that's not an argument that's just saying it sunlight but but that doesn't make it unlikely why wouldn't it happen it's happened even with the stade so why wouldn't happen without one




Comments
  1. There is something my dad told me that will always stick with me. No matter what system you live under, you will always have thugs with guns patrolling the streets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *