It might not be the right word. Maybe it's more egoism? I do see more and more people act for their own individual gain with less and less consideration for the other. They place the individual above all else. In that scenario, government doesn't make sense anymore as it's supposed to work for the masses, to consider. But it has turned into a serving individuals. I can't think of any government currently that is not like that.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Full disclosure: I am an anarchist. I reject the core assumptions of representation and delegated authority. The sales pitch of government of, by, and for the people rings as hollow as A.I. slop ads.
Individualism as a philosophy is based on the golden rule and the non-aggression principle, but critics always conflate that with naked selfishness as they try to justify political plunder and grabs for power.
Thomas Sowell is no anarchist, but he commented that it is strange to see wanting to keep what you build and earn as "selfish" while demanding government impose your will on others and take their property is not.
Ayn Rand said there is no smaller minority than the individual. I'm not her disciple, but she was right, regardless how you frame her arguments for "selfishness as a virtue." Democracy masquerades as altruism while imposing the majority vote upon everyone else. That's tyranny, not liberty.
Well I guess I did not use the term correctly, as a good friend had also told me 😅 Wittgenstein would like to have a word with me about that...
In the classics of Anarchy that I read there's always some degree of representation and delegated authority. Nothing like there is now, which you correctly describe as a masquerade. But always some degree of organization, depending on skill and expertise, which others trust in doing the right thing for the common good.
Since you quote Sowell, where would you place Anarchism - in the constraint or the unconstrained vision? I'm having my problems with that question, so it would be nice to have the opinion of someone who apparently studied anarchism a lot more than I did.
There are anarchists in both camps, and little agreement on how society is likely to organize in the absence of modern nation-states with their territorial monopolies in violence. I suggest the Anarchist's Handbook by Michael Malice as a solid primer with ideas for various thinkers.
I see some precedent in the end of state religions and established churches. You can elong to any congregation you want, and any religion you want, or no religion at all,and we mostlyanage to get along. We now take separation of church and state for granted. I think literally every other government service could be similarly divorced and decentralized.
We have historical examples for highways, mutual aid societies, militias, and more serving the needs of the general public. Bogeyman stories like private fire departments letting the uninsured burn down turn out to be myth. Justifications for government regulation usually turn out to be corporate cronyism to quell comoetition disguised as a public service.
I red "Anarchie!" by Horst Stowasser in college and was quite fascinated by the ideas, leading me to read a few others, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and such. I'm not good at retaining quotes in my memory, usually just the idea or what I make of it. Over the years, even though I still try to implement some of the ideals in my life and the business I run, I've grown frustrated with the world about it.
It seems like a great utopia, something to maintain as an ideal, that will never be more. As I see values being replaced by egoism, the chances of Anarchism to work grow slimmer. Hence my question about the constraint and unconstrained vision and where anarchism fits. I'm not sure if there's a way to get people into the right space to live without a government again, to be capable of sustaining anarchism. So many people have been made dependent, and the ongoing pampering (I know, paraphrasing Thatcher! But I hope it's okay given Sowell and Rand...) is just making them more dependent on the state.
Meaning, I've kind of given up on it. Just trying to sneak it in wherever I can, building my community, in the way that I lead my little bakery, the way I raise my child.
Do you see a way towards a more anarchistic society?
I think the only reason society functions at all is because anarchy works. Agriculture, manufacturing, retail, and myriad services are decentralized powerhouses using prices as an information network to direct action organically, while central planing always results in shortages and waste.
We know police are far from perfect when it comes to preventing or solving actual crimes, but a monopoly in police power has historically tended to exhibit abuse and waste. Courts are slow, often corrupt, and less aimed at restitution to the victim than arbitrary punishments.
We know that roads, postal service, firefighting, and other services typically associated with government have been, and are today, provided voluntarily. "Public works" are examples of Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy more than proof of governmental necessity.
We know that militarism abroad is only possible with a central state and tax-funded armed forces. However, an armed populace is a powerful deterrent to invasion, to say nothing of creative asymmetric warfare as exhibited in Ukraine. Additionally, if there is no king on the chess board, there is no option to checkmate.
If you want to read a more diverse set of anarchists than those you listed, try Karl Hess, Lysander Spooner, Linda and Morris Tannehill, Robert P. "Bob" Murphy, Murray Rothbard, Voltairine De Cleyre, Rose Wilder Lane (yes, Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter) and even Henry David Thoreau to a degree. The split between socialist/communist anarchism and individualist anarchism is old, and the former often deny the latter exist.
Thank you very much for your view on this! I'm currently with a long reading list on Stoicism, but copied the names to my list :-D