Anarchism and the Moral High Ground Is there anytjhing wrong with the argument that if no person can show how he or she acquired a right to coerce another person- to control another person's life through the use or threat of force, then individuals are logically sovereign, and do not, ethically, have to obey the dictates of anyone else unless they choose to vuluntarily? I believe that this is a case for the morality of an'-archism (no rule/rulers) and also a case for the Golden Rule, particularly in Rabbi Hillel's negative form- "Do not to others that which is hateful to you. This is the whole of the law; the rest is commentary." The postive version is okay, but it leaves room for such things as a masochist beating you up because that's what he likes done to him. Proudhon said, accurately, I believe, that: "To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." Isn't doing these things to people who don't want them done to them a violation of the Golden Rule in addition to being contrary to an'-archism? I think that it's enough to have logic on our side--that there's no logical way to show how one person or a group of people acquire a right to coerce anyone else, but I think that we have the world's most accepted religious and ethical principle, the Golden Rule, on our side, too. The above was first submitted as a response in a discussion with with youngcynic at Infoshop.com
Many of the philosophies in Anarchism sound good, but they do not hold up in the face of reality. There will always be people who rule the masses. The masses will never rule themselves and will always be happy to hand over their lives to someone else. 90% of the population on the Earth at any given time are sheep plain and simple. The other 10% are the ones who can think for themselves and 2% of those 10% are the ones who want power, ultimate power and they will always rule the sheep thus shaping the world.
You are probably right. Perhaps the only thing that proponents of anarchism/individualism/individual sovereignty can hang their hats on is a certain amount of psychological peace knowing that the US government did not legitimately "shock and awe" Iraqis on their behalf ("Not in my name!"), and a little more free time due to less time spent deciding whether to support the likes of Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, over the likes of Al Gore or Hillary Clinton. There's also the fact that we probably have logic on on side. Back in 1690 John Locke said that "...no Body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself..." In 1869 anarchist Lysander Spooner wrote a similar statement that "No man can delegate or give to another, any right of dominion over a third person." Locke, like most of us, including philosophers, was inconsistent, and like Hobbes and Rousseau, argued for an implied, involuntary "social contract" that people are subject to in a given geographical area. Spooner, however, stuck to his guns, arguing that a person cannot logically delegate a right that one does not have, such as a right to tax someone else. Other anarchists have made this same argument since then, stating, for example, that if I do not possess a right to prevent you from buying, selling, growing, or smoking marihuana, how can I logically delegate a representative such as a congressperson or town council to prevent you from engaging in these activites? I have yet to see any statists or anyone else refute the logic of this argument, which if implemented would result in anarchism and individual sovereignty.
Actually, if you look at the two most successful attempts at Anarchism (The IWW which was an incredibly successful workers union, and the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalist Uprising) what you see is that Anarchism is incredibly practical and efficient in practice. In Spain, the Anarchists controlled much of the country during the Spanish civil war, and to the surprise of skeptics like yourself, they actully did well fior themselves. When the Anarchists took control, the economy actually improved, even in the middle of a 3 way civil war. Most people dont understand what Anarchism is though. Anarchism is not chaos or lack of order. Its the distribution of power to the point where every man is equal, but that does not have to mean mob rule but could mean an egalitarian society based on decentralized bottom-up democratic rank and file organization. Most people dont think of highly organized systems like that being Anarchist, but if they derive their power from workers councils instead of from figure heads, then they are. Anarchism works in practice. That is what we have seen in practice by example.
Either way there would be a "party" or "government" who had to oversee these operations and they would eventually become corrupt. On all levels of any society men and women will become corrupt. So then the workers councils would become corrupt. Some would even figure out how to move themselves into positions to increase their own power. And eventually the society that was founded would become something entirely different then what it started out as and the people will be scared and miserable and will accept anything to alleviate this misery. Because, in fact, the majority of the human race don't give a damn about freedom, true freedom. All they desire is happiness....peace. If that can be given them with a multitude of laws and controls then so be it, they say. And there will always be those amongst us who want nothing more than power. Then to control humans. To an extent it is their purpose as it is the purpose of the masses to follow and grin.
First of all, you dont seem to be educated about the particulars of Anarchist theory. There is no central government in Anarchism, but there are organized unions who take over the responsibilities that the government had previously attended to. At least in Anarcho-Syndicalism that is the case, not so much with the more individualist strains. Second, nobody claimed that it is possible to eliminate all corruption of human nature. Anarchism doesnt try to make people saints, they just try to minimize the damage. It is very difficult for a dictator to rise to power in an Anarchist society that is firmly established. Because Anarchist societies are based on local self government networked via the federation, bad policy is limited to local areas....a bad government in a Republic affects the entire country, where a bad union has a much more limited scope which helps with damage control. People get to experiment and the stakes are lower and there is more of a social buffer if something ends up not working as well as you wanted it to, whereas if you have a strong central government a mistake would be more catastrophic. Thomas Jefferson felt that people should have revolutions every so often, because the older a system is the more corrupt it becomes. Its good to start fresh sometimes.
I agree with most of what you say. And you are right I have very little knowledge of anarchism and did not intend for it to come across that way. Basically what I am trying to say is that no matter what people want power and no matter what the vast majority of people want to be told how to live. So in any system or non-system a lone man or group of men will always devise ways to raise themselves into power and create the reality they want, be it good or bad. And that the masses will always give into the pressure of control. In fact, they truly do not even care about the way they are governed, not enough to do anything about it anyway. And so any system will always fail and become corrupt and change. Anarchism in particular because lack of control creates a vacuum which will always be filled by those who were meant to rule, good or bad.
