Larken Rose: Practical Anarchism vs. Principle Anarchism

yee-ha all right I hope I have enough of a signal where I am which as you can see is a random construction site not really random already forget what I'm supposed to talk about oh yeah the theme of practical versus principled reasons to be an anarchist this is something that that gets touched on briefly in candles in the dark oh I should mention that while I'm thinking of it the New Hampshire and Washington State and Colorado candles and the dark events are now available and tickets are for sale if you go to Larkin ruse comm and go to the store you'll see how to get them so New Hampshire is in July next month Pennsylvania probably will be too but the tickets aren't available for that yet Washington State just north of Seattle is August and then September is Denver Colorado but you can go get tickets to those because there's three are finally up on the website okay so and so this is something that actually it comes up briefly in the seminars the the thing of practical versus principled and at first this may seem like ah this is sort of theoretical philosophical stuff why do I give a crap there's actually a reason to give a crap which is that if somebody reaches the position of anarchism based on just thinking it will work better in other words it's just a practical solution it's just well in the real world I think this will benefit me better than having a ruling class and there are arguments to be made for that but if somebody reaches it from that angle instead of from the moral principle angle or the understanding that the political philosophy or political authority can't be legitimate ever if they just got to it from a practical standpoint then moment they changed their mind about what's practical they're not anarchists anymore and I think this explains why you know most of the time you know I've talked about a bunch of people when they come out of statism they don't go back now there are a few examples of people who got all scared about immigration or about whatever else and decided to some of them just went full fascist and I'm not sure this explains all of them but I think a lot of that is just if somebody for their own benefit like they don't believe in right and wrong they don't actually have principles they just kind of thought it would have worked better to not have a ruling class but then suddenly they think it would serve them better to have a ruling class if there was never principles behind it then they can just jump back to being a status or jump all the way to being a fascist or a communist or whatever else if they imagine that that political authority can be legitimate and moral and righteous and to them it was just a question of what works there's also the problem of when you're arguing about what works you're basically doing guessing and predicting and when you're talking to most of the world their ability to guess and predict is horrendously bad like they don't understand enough about human behavior and economics to have a rational discussion there and so much of statism is based on fear mongering and telling people we'd all be killing and eating each other if we didn't have politicians controlling us and we'd all just be letting people starve to death if we didn't have government welfare and we'd all be violent criminals if we didn't have government protecting us and and all these things and so if it's if it comes down to guessing and predicting people are so bad at understanding just cause and effect that you basically have to start from square one and explain to them human behavior and there's some great books about that about economics and all that and but like to have to build that whole framework just to get to the point of saying and politicians don't have to donor the right to rule us is sort of a drastically inefficient to get there now I know a bunch of people a bunch of anarchists who got there by way of the practical reasoning and there is plenty of argument to be made for the practical reasoning of yeah why for the vast majority of people it's going to work better to not have a ruling class now for the parasites it probably works better to have a ruling class that way they don't have to be productive and they can be protected you know they can commit a bunch of crimes to be protected by a bunch of thugs paid for with money they stole from other people so some people actually benefit from having a statist authoritarian society it's just mostly the evil people and if there isn't like the the sales pitch you have to use if you're just going for the practical thing immediately fails on anybody who thinks they're already being served by government like if somebody gets a Social Security check trying to explain to them well in the long run you'd be better off if that thing that sends you checks disappears like good luck talking them into that as long as there are a beneficiary of the of the extortion if they don't see any you know principle problem with it why should the the recipients of stolen loot if they think it's perfectly okay what do you think the chances are that you're going to talk them into deciding to not get that stolen loot every month if they feel perfectly fine about it like trying to convince them that on a practical basis you'd be better off if you weren't getting a check every month which in the long run is actually true because society would be so prosperous and people would have so much despair and to help voluntarily but in the short run it's not true like people who are sitting around and getting a check whether because they're on Social Security because they're older because they're you know on welfare for whatever reason trying to give them a practical argument about how your life would be better if you weren't getting free stuff you know talk about an uphill battle but if you point out to them hey that's that's stolen loot and they're still gonna probably be to hearing and understanding it but if they do understand it and realize oh wow this is you know this isn't okay before it was yay fun free stuff but when you realize yeah other people actually being robbed and caged to give you that free stuff then that can persuade people even against their own sort of short-term physical personal interests and that's the thing is if you're arguing the practical side or you can argue is that it'll be in the individuals personal interest – it'll be in their best interest to drastically change the world and the thing is because people are so uncomfortable with anything they're unfamiliar with you're basically saying take this comfortable predictable life you have you know maybe you have problems and stuff but you're not like dying and nobody's shooting at you take that comfortable predictable world and trade it in for a complete unknown that you've never seen that sounds foreign and strange and weird to you don't worry it'll work out just fine like if your argument is from the practical side why would anybody believe you I mean you're right and if they understood enough about economics and reality and stuff they would agree but most people don't and you're trying to sell them a giant unknown and get them to let go of what is familiar to them so if you're not approaching it from a principled standpoint first of all persuading somebody else is a pain in the neck if not impossible second of all the people who get there just from the practical argument can just as easily go in a different direction from a practical argument aside there well now I think that fascism is better and if there were if there was no moral principle underlying their position to begin with like what's to stop them from doing that if they think they might benefit because you know under fascist dictatorships some people did better than they were doing under whatever form came before lots of people did worse and got murdered stuff but that's a principle thing to say you know this system even if right now you're benefiting and doing fine under this system it's doing evil crap it shouldn't exist because of that evil crap and the fact that you're doing just fine is not the only thing that matters when determining whether it's okay and so just and also the whole approach of candles in the dark has to do with using what people already know and using that the moral codes they already have as opposed to like trying to give them you know years worth of economic education in ten minutes like good luck with that when it comes to the principal thing you can just happen to what they already have if you know how to ask the questions and how to approach it you don't have to get into the bog of guessing and predicting and and I mean I'm sure you've all seen the you know laundry list of weird bizarre fear-mongering predictions status make if not for government it isn't just but what about the roses invaders in this and everybody rules to be sick and nobody'll know how to read and there'll be warlords and you know anything they can imagine in their head if they don't understand economics and human behavior they can think well that might happen I don't want that to happen so I want to stick with what we still have I've talked before about the fact that people to just a drastic degree will usually stick with what is familiar to them even if it's just horrible even if it's literally a war zone most people will stay in the war zone and go well this is where I live you know unless their house all the way gets blown up and then they go oh well I guess I don't live here anymore maybe I should go somewhere else but in whether somebody's in like a violent relationship or a dangerous neighborhood or an actual war zone people tend to be more comfortable with what's familiar even if it's familiar and massively dangerous and so with that in mind if you're trying to talk them into something they've never seen and can't really imagine and you're trying to talk to them into it on a practical basis like never mind what you already know and you're already comfortable with and you already have a predictable life that you know how it works I want you to advocate something that's completely foreign to you that you don't even know how anything would jerk cuz trust me it'll work out better for you and that's just a really inefficient approach and it doesn't really work because as long as they're scared of something as long as they can imagine some boogeyman out there that's going to hurt them without the state then you have no argument if you're just arguing from the practical and saying this will work better and they say Oh scary Muslims okay what other argument you have none except like trying to talk them out of thinking they're scary Muslims or scary Russians or Chinese or whoever they're scared of this week like good luck with that and that's why even though I do know a bunch of anarchists who got their from the logical or the the practical reasoning I don't it all suggests people argue from that position because it's totally weak it's totally a position that people can go back on if they decide well maybe this won't work I'm not really sure and you'd like they got in the world and they'd say people are there's a bunch of people that are really stupid and short-sighted like they see a riot or something or they see people being idiots on you know some shopping day where they're trampling each other any cup people this is due time we need a ruling class and if they don't get why a ruling class is inherently no legitimate they're always going to jump back to that security blanket if it's just a practical argument I'm not sure how this is going to work so we need this big magical mystical thing to make things work out because I don't know how they would otherwise so you're up against that if your position is based on the practical side of things instead of being based on the principle because I got there by accident by figuring out that political authority can't be a legitimate no matter what I by the time I was an anarchist I still wasn't convinced that on a practical basis it would work better I am now because I understand economics better but I was still of the position that I don't know what's going to happen but it's impossible for this to be legitimate it's impossible for a parasitic coercive ruling class to be morally legitimate so whatever the outcome is that's not okay you know it's sort of the the the cliche example but who is gonna pick the cotton even if the cotton industry would completely fall apart slavery is bad and should be ended like that's the moral versus the practical if you're talking to somebody you know back then in slavery days when slavery was called slavery anyway and your argument is just don't worry your cotton plantation will do even better without slaves like talk about an uphill argument to try to make but if you say whether or not you do better this is totally evil and has to be ended people can at least understand that and they don't have to have like a degree in economics actually most people the degree in economics don't understand basic economics either but all they have to do is understand yeah it's not okay to own people and then the whole discussion of but who will pick the cotton is like I don't know I don't care that doesn't change right and wrong so that's not a rebuttal I'm not gonna cheer for slavery because I'm not sure how Cotton's gonna be harvested without it that's not good enough and it's the same thing when you can show somebody that the belief in political authority in government is not just contrary to your beliefs is contrary to theirs and that's one of the key things about candles in the dark is it just uses their own view of how people should be in morality and however they define right and wrong to show that they will always have contradictions inside their own head between their own morality and their belief in politics your your values in your moral code don't even need to enter into it but if you're arguing the practical then you're starting from scratch and you have to talk them into understanding all sorts of things and then jumping into a giant unknown instead of clinging to something that's fairly predictable and relatively easy for most people because being a caged animal is relatively easy like well I know where I live on together they take a bunch of my money and I'm not too happy about that but it's predictable and I have my house and I have my car and I'm a big screen TV and I can do all sorts of things after I asked politicians for permission to do them and the other half I can't do oh wow like that's the price we pay for being the livestock of politicians so it's comfortable enough that if there isn't a principled reason for them to give it up most people are just going to cling to it because it's familiar and if they think it's ok if it's ok and familiar why would they give it up all right let me just I'm just gonna have jam on the brakes and back up and see if I can respond to some comments whoops jumping over PA I'm wrong on border zones that's not what this is about but uh wait and your papers please why hear me good friend of yourself but I will do a separate Facebook live thing about that I'm about to get mauled by a stink bug let's see if I can scroll up that comments are jumping out all over the place so a bunch of people are on the air trying to argue about the border thing the victims are more of a claim to the state's monopoly monopolize land no they don't but that's not the discussion going on here in case you aren't paying attention and we're just in trolling mode there's the thing that Brett says brings up the thing you know trying to get especially if you're arguing the practical trying to get the older generation to give it up when they they think they've paid into it all these years and now they're like well now it a lot of work retired I want my social security check of my retirement check and don't rock the boat don't change anything because now is when I'm sitting around on my ass and and having my children's money be stolen to be given to me although most of them don't know that's what it is they they actually think they paid into something and they didn't they're just getting money stolen from their children and if you can show that to them again based on the principle things some of them will go oh wait I'm not really that happy about it whereas if it's just the practical like like I said before how are you gonna convince them that on a practical basis you'll be better off not having that free check every month as opposed to having it like good luck of that argument oh yeah and it isn't just like Roberts saying it isn't just direct checks it's it's all sorts of benefits people think they get from the state which is funny because like they think well the government gives us the roads no the government steals your money wastes most of it and then you know does some corrupt bid to some politicians brother-in-law to do the work like it's still us doing the work it's not the politicians and the cops doing the work it's us building the freaking roads and paying for it with a really inefficient corrupt middleman in between but if people perceive government as building the roads or doing any of those services they will assume that no government equals none of those services even though all the people and the resources are still there would it's only removing the politicians and the idea that they they have the right to rule that's all that goes out of the equation doesn't remove any of the the know-how or the effort or the the productivity of the actual people who already produce all of it I want to talk about the emotional aspect of trying to reach status lots of anarchists go full fascists because of fear – yeah and fears – leave the mind killer and we have all sorts of examples of that of people going so there's a difference between emotion and principle there are if they do sort of interrelate like I don't mind guilt-tripping people who are advocating evil and saying look what you're actually advocating about actual people in the real world and look what's actually happening as a result the way you advocate and in the hope that decent people will feel bad about it because they totally should if they're condoning something that's hurting innocent people [Applause] and so it's yeah well I already talked about that now have to do it over again to be it someone with a different view than you that's very specific I do wonder is there does anybody know if there was a way to do Facebook live with two people at once as far as I know it's just this you can't add another person because it would be fun to do debates but I don't think there's a way to on Facebook alive like I could do it separately as a thing and edit it and post it as a video that's a pain in the neck compared to Facebook live it just go click and then I'm on but if there was another way to bring somebody in yeah it'd be fun to do debates between rational people it's funny because the the ones who are most rapidly saying you have to debate this person it's always some emotional fascist moron that they want me to debate because the people who are just like rational and calm aren't that we're offing at the mouth to get attention for themselves but if you found it and I've you know done a bazillion debates before but it would be fun to to be people here and there and and I'll often see somebody and you know saying something I disagree with in thinking hey you're coherent and rational it would be really cool to have this as a public discussion but I don't know that that's possible on Facebook life which makes it more complicated to do wow these comments are jumping around all over the place please come to Chicago I have had a few people ask about me doing it candles in the dark in Chicago it's just a matter of timing and demand and I'm still and trying to figure out where it would be worth it okay kind of need to demonstrate that it's worth it in the places that are already scheduled first before I schedule anymore which again is New Hampshire Colorado and Washington state are all scheduled if you go to Larkin risk calm and go to the store yeah I actually think that Robert mentioned is common as Larkin Rose man-on-the-street flippin status that would be a great video I actually want to do something like that in conjunction with candles in the dark little Clips like that of you know it's never you're never gonna have a profound substantive discussion well not very often with someone you randomly meet on the street but I'm thinking of actually randomly bribing people in the street like you get 10 bucks for five minutes of answering questions about what you believe just like it candles in the dark we we the last session we pay status 50 bucks to come in for 15 minutes and have it back and forth discussion so people can practice what they learned over the weekend and that's been some of the most fun i opening parts of the events so it would be a little version of that man-on-the-street version with just me doing it so let me say is it necessary for communism and socialism derive before we reach anarchism no it's necessary to completely avoid collectivism because it's insanely bad idea if people want to try it voluntarily be my guest but economically it's still gonna fail and if they want to force it on everybody else so Tyrell already said what communism socialism antithetical to anarchy he'd beat me to it oh let's see you'll never get the masses to term there's the spirit I'm gonna slightly pick on Justin even though I didn't know nothing about them so this isn't really about you personally Justin most of the people I hear who say that sort of thing are exactly the people who should come to a candles in the dark event because they think they've tried everything and what they really tried was everything rational and logical and objective that they could think of and when that doesn't work they decide nothing works because they skip the the whole aspect of psychology which matters way more than what you're actually saying as far as whether you're going to get through to somebody and have them hear what you're saying and understand it and whether you're going to have any chance of persuading them actually yes the masses are all going to be voluntary ist's and they're not even going to use the word because by the time they get there it'll just be what everybody believes it won't even be a thing it won't be a movement anymore it'll be a stupid superstition that everybody is given up but when people think people are just way too dumb to understand it and if most people are never going to catch on the wrong and they're basing that on them talking the way the way they think people should should listen and understand ideas like I'm explaining it intellectually two plus three equals four and this person didn't understand and they ran away therefore they're incapable of understanding it that's not at all true because you have to keep in mind all the weird things human psychology does that gets in the way of that and then you have to figure out how to get around them which is what candles in the dark is about it's also what the mirror is about the computer program thing which is more or less that they both use very similar approaches and techniques except candles and the dark is teaching people to do it one on one with people they know and stuff and the mirror is going to be a interactive program that just runs by itself and walks people through it but it's yet whenever people think wow this is just so close and I've been doing this for twenty years so if it's hopeless then anybody should be saying its list it's me and for a long time I thought it was hopeless and I kept doing it anyway because I thought well I think this is really important I think it's obviously true I have to keep saying it the holy smokes is it frustrating how dense people are and I'm not saying people aren't dense I'm saying there are ways to get around their density to actually get way more people to understand it doesn't mean it works on everybody doesn't mean everyone's going to understand it you know that you'll get through to every single person you talk to but when you understand the psychological side of things and change just little things about the way you think and the way you talk you may suddenly notice very very different results that you get when talking to people so yeah so that's you know it's one of the biggest thing about candles in the dark one of the things that covers it sort of its main purpose so that's saying you know his dad gets the principles but it's like I wait can you do and I sort of I can sort of sympathize with that and what I what I'd say to people like that is well okay if you think the rest of the world is just going to keep bumbling all in being see if you understand it and agree with that but you just sort of think we're doomed because that's the world is bumbling along I'd like I could try to talk you into thinking there's more hope than that but the two things I would ask is one if you understand the principles don't you be one of the ones advocating immoral authoritarian aggression like even if you think everybody else is going to don't do it yourself and while you're at it maybe mention these things to people you know and see if you can get them to not do it and you don't have to expect the world to change and you can still think we're doomed but don't be part of the problem I mean and it's sort of and I've thrown this in many of men artists face who says well it's going to be politics so we might as well use it la blah blah you know I after giving up the moral argument well yeah it's a legitimate that the state functions by aggression but it's going to be it so we should use it it's basically like saying well there's always going to be murder so I'm gonna go commit murder there's always going to be theft and extortion so I'm gonna go do it because it might as well benefit me it's going to happen anyway there's a difference between people out there are going to do bad stuff and I'm gonna do bad stuff because somebody was going to which is a totally bogus and moral argument so even if people think of they're just you know the world is doing people are just gonna be violent status on saying okay just don't be one of them just can I request that much that you not be part of this giant illegitimate violent monster um yes this is an addition and I did get the Masters permission don't remind me Lucy comments jumping around all over the place aye sir CJ I don't know who you mean so apparently not live videos switch and then go live for PC okay I think I know what you mean so in other words it's not using Facebook to do it it's just manually switching the video feed by end except then they'd have to physically be here I think Matt whatever Kelly called Blue Gene to have two people on at once does that work was a comment from Shepard does that work in Facebook the Facebook live ye I don't know I'll have to find out somebody saying yes you can backwards the band does it often cool watched it find out so I guess I could just end there at some point I will I will do a facebook life about not just about the same border thing I mean I did the last one about how frickin dishonest they are and the funny thing is a bunch of close border advocates came along and did exactly precisely what I say they do which is very nice of them but there are a couple sort of feeble arguments that might be worth addressing just to demolish but I'm the one I'm going to do that I don't this comment was that whether there's me or somebody else but somebody asked about the virtru signaling thing there's there's several things that i did a post about this a while ago several things that that basically mostly fascists in the alt right now use to basically insult anybody who's it all like decent or has moral principles and it's funny because they came from ideas that are actually you know worth worth criticizing but then they expand it to everything like the whole virtru signaling they'll now use that against anybody who has a principle like oh you're just virtue signaling by saying you don't advocate violent aggression against your neighbor well if you want to call it that fine like what the term originally meant was people who aren't even doing anything they're just going out of their way to say how good they are like okay so what but now the basically the alt rate fascists try to stick that label on anybody who has any principle or just decency social justice warrior is another one that it used to have a specific meaning and now it's just sort of anybody who thinks you shouldn't be an asshole or shouldn't violently attack people the fascists or you know social justice for you and my favorite insult is purest like oh you're one of those people that actually has principles and sticks by them you're such a purist like that's an insult and it's always from people who want to totally cave and compromise the principle of non-aggression and say well now i'm so scared that we should have violent aggression against those people over there because they're scary so it's it's sort of funny and lame the things that people just decide our insults that don't even mean a I mean they're just all the way complaining oh you're like being moral and not attacking people and stuff but there's no fluke or which is funny that because the alt-right fascists are some of the most thin-skinned babies around which is why they join a gang it's why they want an authoritarian gang it's why most people join gangs because they feel we weak and insufficient by themselves and they want to feel powerful and I mean that's the whole notion of fascism the fashio the bundle of sticks tied together is individually we're a bunch of weak whiny babies but if you bundle us together and authoritarian bundle of stupidity then we feel powerful and can boss other people are the slight paraphrasing of the symbolism but close enough okay somebody else have me explaining how to do a video thing all righty so that might be it for now and I will come back and comment in the in the text it's probably something else I was going to mention but I already forget what it is so uh all righty then see you later

  1. I honestly can't tell what self-described anarchists actually believe. It seems like because it's now impossible to deny that 20th century authoritarian socialism was a failure, the fashionable radical leftist now abstractly defends the notion of 'socialism without any authority' but has no coherent explanation of what that actually means or has any answers to the obvious questions it raises. All they have is vague nonsense about mutual aid solving every problem. After anarchist revolution in a developed country, what does society look like? What authority enforces the absence of authority? What happens to political dissidents? Is there any law enforcement? Environmental protections? Any social safety net? Public funding for education, arts, and science? Monetary policy? Would people living under anarchism be free to establish a fascist state?

  2. Here's a good argument, I think. People believe there won't be any "order". People need leaders to show them the way. They think these "palititions" are the leaders. But they lead through MANipulation. There are natural leaders that live among the masses. They will naturally take their place and lead by truth.

  3. One thing I have not been able to work through in my head is this. We find ourselves in an anarchist USA with completely open borders. Naturally we find a lot of people coming here to take advantage of our free society kinda like what is happening now. They of course are bringing a lot of mental baggage with them about how society should work. Kinda like what we have now. They begin to regress our anarchistic country back to what we had before. How do we deal with this in a free society? This is very close to the concerns conservatives have about mass immigration. I do think it is a problem.

  4. When you said practical, I was hoping maybe you would address some of the practical challenges that an anarchic society would face. I'm all for it on a moral level but I want to figure out ways to minimize negative impact on others. I'm talking about things like people abusing dogs, children, the elderly, etc. or taking advantage of the weak. These have always been big problems that social reformers wanted to fix by making all these laws and regulations. I'm all for getting rid of the criminal filth that think they run this place, but we will still need to address social concerns.

  5. ahh gotta luv how it is… rather than 'of the ppl, 4 the ppl & by the ppl', its 'of the baby boomers, 4 the baby boomers & by the baby boomers'; glad he touched on 'alt-rite' buzzwords (u read it correctly; I said 'rite' instead of 'right' cuz it's not about righteousness but rather rigid tribalism) cuz bitching about 'participation trophies' is pointless since the whole assumption behind the concept of a trophy (or medal, ribbon, badge, certificate, degree, etc.) is that ppl only do their best in order 2 recieve a narrative symbolic sledgehammer plus there's so much in life that doesn't promise a material prize @ the end so y obsess over a petty piece of metal (or plastic in many cases) 😛

  6. Social security tax was taken out of every paycheck I ever earned in my life. There was no way to avoid having that tax removed from my checks. So, how can you say we never paid anything into it?

  7. social security is crumbs they give us back after ripping us all off, a strong free community would have a way better contingency plan for people that needed assistance.

Leave a Reply

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