why anti-authoritarianism doesn't make sense.

[Forward Union]

Now firstly, I will probably end up talking in a circle, so bare with me.

I'd like to start by pointing out two things. Anarchists opposition to hierarchy rests mainly (not exclusively) on two arguments, that hierarchy is not necessary due to nature and that Hierarchy is not morally or logically justified.

Now although the first one can be proven (or disproved) through empirical testing, the second poses a problem.

How can we know what's legitimate and what isn't?
Lets imagine this situation. A white supremacist, a Black Supremacist and an Anarchist meet, and one states that Whites are superior, another that blacks are superior, and the Anarchist argues that both are equal.

On what basis will you argue that any one of them is right? and what kind of argument will you put forward to convince the two people that they are wrong (in terms of opinion). The point im trying to make is that you cannot know moral systems are wrong in a way that will be useful to change their minds.

This causes a problem for anti-authoritarianism. Our politics only make sense if we can prove that all forms of social hierarchy are illegitimate. We cannot know whether Hierarchy is morally unjust or not, but ironically, this does infant give us a legitimate argument. We cannot prove that our opponents are morally unjust, ultimately meaning that they cannot prove that we are morally unjust. Leaving it at a stale mate.

What im trying to say, is that we are simply not capable of constructing an argument to convince our opponents that they should change their minds. Not because we're stupid but because such arguments are logically impossible.

This may sound like a depressing pro-authoritarian article, it's not, more like a way of trying to get people to improve their ways of tackling authoritarianism, and secondly I want to hear what advocates of a state (perhaps including socialists) have to say about the 'stale mate' situation. Do you (anarchists) all agree that our fundamental argument can be won by our ability to prove hierarchy to be illegitimate?

[JKP]

Assuming that the crowd you assembled hasn't ripped itself to shreds yet, you could ask them to try and prove that their race is superior. Then it's just an exercise in futility.

[LSD]

Additives Free, I think you're missing the critical argument.

As anti-authoritarians, we are not saying that hiearchy is "wrong" in some abstract moral sense. "Legitimacy" in that context is indeed unprovable and ultimately inane as a concept.

What we are saying instead is that hiearchy causes specific harms which are ojectively demonstrable and that, furthermore, it offers no objective bennefits which make those harms tolerable for society.

That is, hierarchy, as a social institution, is undesirable because of the effects it has on society, not because of some nebulous supersocial "moral" valuation.


Lets imagine this situation. A white supremacist, a Black Supremacist and an Anarchist meet, and one states that Whites are superior, another that blacks are superior, and the Anarchist argues that both are equal.

On what basis will you argue that any one of them is right?

On the basis of evidence, of course.

Why do you think that we oppose racism? Because it "feels good"? No, we oppose racism because it is harmful, destructive, and incorrect.

The amount of data discounting racist superstitions is overwhelming.


The point im trying to make is that you cannot know moral systems are wrong in a way that will be useful to change their minds.

But this isn't about "moral systems", it's about political ones.

You may be right. People's personal morality may indeed by unchangable by rational argumentation. I happen to know from personal experience that this is not universally so, but for the sake of argument let's even say that it were. So what?

This isn't about personal "morals", I couldn't give a damn about your personal "morals". This is about the organization of society, and that can and must be rationaly debated.

Look, if you are contending that it is impossible to make political decisions based on reason and consideration, we all better pack our bags now, 'cause no one's getting off. If people are so trapped in their own ideological bubbles that it is impossible to convince them by shear weight of fact and reason, then there's really no point to trying.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

The history of social change is replete with people making rational decisions on policy. Utilitarian thinking is as old as thinking, no matter what the supernaturalists would have you believe.

And that means that even if people are caught up in their own warped beliefs, they can be set free. That's what communism's about, right, liberation? Well, it isn't just the physical kind, it's also the psychological kind.

We strive to free people from the ideological shackles of capitalism and racism and sexism and all the other exploitive oppressive dogmas out there. It may not be easy, but it is doable.


What im trying to say, is that we are simply not capable of constructing an argument to convince our opponents that they should change their minds. Not because we're stupid but because such arguments are logically impossible.

Only if you insist on addressing the issue from a "moral" framework. If you address it from a practical one, there's no problem.

[Forward Union]

Morals: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Even if you prove that the ideal the opposition hold dear is responsible for suffering, death, any kind of crime, these results may be deemed as 'good' in the oppositions eyes. Put simply, 'good' is a relative term. And although providing the facts about a certain idea is empirically possible, choosing how someone interprets these facts is a different matter altogether.

Yes, we can prove that Hierarchy, capitalism, racism, are murderous, hateful, genocidal, exploitative things, making the leap to say "these are bad things" is in fact a moral opinion.

We can know that the ideas hold these attributes, but we cannot know these facts in a way that will persuade the opposition to change their mind...

"Capitalism kills, Killing is wrong"

"Capitalism Kills, Killing is good"

We have a fact and an opinion. We can know that capitalism kills with Empirical evidence, can we prove this is wrong?? I certainly think it is, as do most members of this bored, can we convince others of our moral standpoint??


We strive to free people from the ideological shackles of capitalism and racism and sexism and all the other exploitive oppressive dogmas out there. It may not be easy, but it is doable

It certainly is, regardless of how people wish to interperate facts.

[LSD]

Even if you prove that the ideal the opposition hold dear is responsible for suffering, death, any kind of crime, these results may be deemed as 'good' in the oppositions eyes.

They "may" be, but they won't.

No one, not even capitalists, not even fascists, wants to be killed, wants to suffer, or wants to be the victim of crime; no one.

It isn't a question of morality, just basic human instinct.

If we could truly prove that an ideal in question causes those things you've outlined, the debate is over. There's no further question of "but are these things wrong". These things are assumed to be "wrong" going into any discussion. It's simply the common denominator of human understanding. Call it a "golden rule" or call it simple self-preservation, but any serious political conversation begins and ends with a mutual tacit understanding that society exists to serve its members. From this, social "morality" flows in only one direction.

There is no need for the metaphysical here. Those things which are socially "immoral" are those things which can be objectively demonstrated to harm. Murder harms; rape harms; torture harms. We don't need theology or ecclesiastics to define this for us, we can come to the logical conclusion all on our own.

Honestly, the use of a supersocial "morality" is grossly overexagerated.


"Capitalism Kills, Killing is good"

But do capitalists make this argument?

Despite the overwhelming evidence that capitalism does kill, does exploit, do capitalists take the "moral" counterposition you propose?

No. Instead they argue the facts. They debate whether or not capitalism kills, whether or not capitalism exploits. They do this because the "moral" issues here are not contentious.

The "immorality" of murder and exploitation are not "controverial" issues. The reason that they are harmful for society is the same reason that they are harmful to the individual, they harm! By definition, they harm.

Exploitation causes misery and unnescessary suffering. Murder causes death. These are things which people naturally do not want. Society existing solely to protect people has a requisite obligation to minimize those things which people naturally do not want.

It's really that simple.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 06:15 PM
They "may" be, but they won't.

No one, not even capitalists, not even fascists, wants to be killed, wants to suffer, or wants to be the victim of crime; no one.

It isn't a question of morality, just basic human instinct.

If we could truly prove that an ideal in question causes those things you've outlined, the debate is over. There's no further question of "but are these things wrong". These things are assumed to be "wrong" going into any discussion. It's simply the common denominator of human understanding. Call it a "golden rule" or call it simple self-preservation, but any serious political conversation begins and ends with a mutual tacit understanding that society exists to serve its members. From this, social "morality" flows in only one direction.
Irrelevant, its not about whether an individual wants to be killed or suffer, but that they believe it is ok to kill others, or to make others suffer.


There is no need for the metaphysical here. Those things which are socially "immoral" are those things which can be objectively demonstrated to harm. Murder harms; rape harms; torture harms. We don't need theology or ecclesiastics to define this for us, we can come to the logical conclusion all on our own.

But there is a large jump from "Rape harms" to "Harm is wrong" its called the naturalistic fallacy.


But do capitalists make this argument?

Despite the overwhelming evidence that capitalism does kill, does exploit, do capitalists take the "moral" counterposition you propose?

No of course not, but I was using it as an example. I can sum up the rest of my arguemnt with the example of the Holocaust. Nazis argue that the killing, even the genocide, of Jews is a good thing. We argue that it is a bad thing. But we cannot prove that their ideal is morally wrong in way that will persuade them to agree with us. We cannot prove with empirical evidence that the genocide of jews is morally wrong. We can prove it causes suffering, we can prove that it won't be beneficial for society, we can prove that it is vastly unpopular. Perhaps we can prove it morally wrong in some logic, but not in a way that will convince them, mainly because they have established their own logic.

As I said before, If we don't have moral knowledge, neither does anyone else. That is, if we don't really know what's right and wrong no one else does either. And therefore, although we can't prove that genocide is wrong, it's advocates can't prove it's right. Utilitarianism becomes useful

[Freedom Works]

"As an evolved creature, man has the imperative to compete with other creatures for survival. Existance is "good" because it is preferred over non-existence, otherwise the opposite would be true, in which case living creatures would not seek to overcome any threats to it. Existence, therefore, is "the good." Extinction is then "evil." (Any creature who disagrees with that can go blow his brains out anytime now.)

Since existence is preferred over non-existence ("existance" being the definition of "good"), then, by extension, that which is conducive to continued existence is also "good." Therefore, actions that threaten continued existence, are the opposite, or evil. Murder is then objectively evil, since it threatens not only the continued existence (survival) of the intended victim; it threatens the chances of survival of the perpetrator as well (all life are evil for the same reason). Stealing is evil; adultery is evil; fraud is evil; any initiation of force against another human being is evil." -There's No Government Like No Government

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 11 2005, 09:25 PM
"As an evolved creature, man has the imperative to compete with other creatures for survival. Existance is "good" because it is preferred over non-existence, otherwise the opposite would be true, in which case living creatures would not seek to overcome any threats to it. Existence, therefore, is "the good." Extinction is then "evil." (Any creature who disagrees with that can go blow his brains out anytime now.)

Since existence is preferred over non-existence ("existance" being the definition of "good"), then, by extension, that which is conducive to continued existence is also "good." Therefore, actions that threaten continued existence, are the opposite, or evil. Murder is then objectively evil, since it threatens not only the continued existence (survival) of the intended victim; it threatens the chances of survival of the perpetrator as well (all life are evil for the same reason). Stealing is evil; adultery is evil; fraud is evil; any initiation of force against another human being is evil." -There's No Government Like No Government
wait, wasn't the whole concept of determining the "goodness" of existance self benefit?

so wouldn't doing anything to further this existance (including killing, stealing etc...) be good?

basically, objectivism

correct me if my assertiosn are wrong

[Freedom Works]

so wouldn't doing anything to further this existance (including killing, stealing etc...) be good?
No, because in the long run it is 'more profitable' to make friends and trade than to use force against others.

[colonelguppy]

perhaps, some of the time.

but other times its better for you personally to harm others.

could those instances be viewed as "good", as a way of furthering existence?

[Freedom Works]

but other times its better for you personally to harm others.
Only if you have immunity, through a "government" or some such. When people are responsible for their actions, they act in their best interest - by not initiating force.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 11 2005, 09:02 PM
Irrelevant, its not about whether an individual wants to be killed or suffer, but that they believe it is ok to kill others, or to make others suffer.
Whether you live in a society where you are likely to be killed or suffer is strongly correlated with whether killing/hurting others is deemed acceptable in that society. If we all agree to avoid killing/harming each other then we wer'e a lot less likely to be killed than if we go around killing anyone we don't like. The desire each of us has to avoid suffering, etc. can best be met if each of us does not force others to suffer unnecessarily. So by not murdering others, and discouraging people from murdering others, we are helping achieve our own want not to be murdered. If we work together like this, we can better achieve our goals.

The same concept can be broadened to create a general theory of ethics. Every action eligable for ethical consideration can have an impact on both our own happiness/pleasure/deisres/etc. and on other people's happiness/etc. One can conceptually attempt to estimate the total happiness/etc. increased or decreased among all people affected by it due to any particular action. The proper course is then to choose the action that maximizes the total happiness, etc. of the people affected. If we all do this it works out to our collective benefit.

In most political discussions its not necessary to get this deep because most people will agree on some basic premises (like "you shouldn't murder innocent people"). Just find some common values and work from there, it's easier as there are some common values you can count on that everyone or almost everyone will share.

[KC]

Only if you have immunity, through a "government" or some such. When people are responsible for their actions, they act in their best interest - by not initiating force.

Or if they can get away with it.

[Freedom Works]

With Free-Market police, do you really think people will get away with hurting other people?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 12 2005, 03:18 AM

but other times its better for you personally to harm others.
Only if you have immunity, through a "government" or some such. When people are responsible for their actions, they act in their best interest - by not initiating force.
oh. i thought we were talking about scenarios in the absence of government

[Freedom Works]

When would it be more profitable for you to harm others than not harm others, if you don't have immunity?

[KC]

With Free-Market police, do you really think people will get away with hurting other people?

Yes. People will be able to get away with anything, provided they have enough money to bribe officials and the such with.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 13 2005, 01:01 AM
When would it be more profitable for you to harm others than not harm others, if you don't have immunity?
never, but immunity can be self-attained. it can exist in stateless scenarios, or in other scenarios where you ARE the state

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:05 AM

With Free-Market police, do you really think people will get away with hurting other people?

Yes. People will be able to get away with anything, provided they have enough money to bribe officials and the such with.
bribe officials?

all forms of succesful free-market depends on the government being atleast semi-competent in upholding rights. if the state doesn't do that, its the states fault, not the economic model's

[Freedom Works]

You have no idea how the Free Market works.

[KC]

all forms of succesful free-market depends on the government being atleast semi-competent in upholding rights. if the state doesn't do that, its the states fault, not the economic model's

Freedom Works is an "anarcho-capitalist." He doesn't believe in any state at all, just a free market society without government.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:10 AM


all forms of succesful free-market depends on the government being atleast semi-competent in upholding rights. if the state doesn't do that, its the states fault, not the economic model's

Freedom Works is an "anarcho-capitalist." He doesn't believe in any state at all, just a free market society without government.
oh. i suppose thats where we differ.

[Freedom Works]

BTW, my comment about not know how free markets work was @ Lazar.

[Freedom Works]

BTW, my comment about not know how free markets work was @ Lazar.

[KC]

You have no idea how the Free Market works.


How about instead of saying something like that, you be more precise and tell me your side of the debate instead of saying "you don't understand." If I don't understand, then enlighten me.

[Freedom Works]

I figured that would get you to appeal to logic. :)

If someone was going to bribe someone in the Free Market, they would have to bribe a huge amount - over the amount of profits and losses that could be realized if they are caught. "Government" doesn't care about profits, so it has no reason to not accept low bribe - it's going to get the taxpayers money anyway.

[KC]

If someone was going to bribe someone in the Free Market, they would have to bribe a huge amount - over the amount of profits and losses that could be realized if they are caught.

Why? You don't think a cop is going to take an extra $200 to keep his mout shut about something?

[quincunx5]

Why? You don't think a cop is going to take an extra $200 to keep his mout shut about something?


Not if it means getting found out by a third party and losing your job.

A third party finds out about the criminal activity of the one that gave you $200. The criminal then implicates you. You become a criminal. Your bribe is confiscated and return to the victim.

Or the cop accepts the bribe and then rats out the criminal anyway. There is no guarantee of keeping one's mouth shut.

As Freedom Works implies: You have to bribe someone over the amount that one can make as a cop (or a private security officer), but even that is no guarantee that they will keep that bribe.

[KC]

A bribe in your imaginary society works just the same as one in this society, then. Your arguments show this.



Not if it means getting found out by a third party and losing your job.

People take bribes now. At the risk. The amount of the bribe must be worth the risk.



A third party finds out about the criminal activity of the one that gave you $200. The criminal then implicates you. You become a criminal. Your bribe is confiscated and return to the victim.

Ok? If you're found out, you will be punished. That means nothing if you're not found out.



Or the cop accepts the bribe and then rats out the criminal anyway. There is no guarantee of keeping one's mouth shut.

Are you saying bribes don't work? Because I'm pretty sure history has proven that bribes work.



As Freedom Works implies: You have to bribe someone over the amount that one can make as a cop (or a private security officer), but even that is no guarantee that they will keep that bribe.

No you don't. You just have to bribe them an amount that they feel is worth risking it for. It has nothing to do about how much they make.

[Freedom Works]

That means nothing if you're not found out.
The State has no incentive to find out about corrupt cops - it won't loose any money.


Are you saying bribes don't work? Because I'm pretty sure history has proven that bribes work.
For Statist institutions.


It has nothing to do about how much they make.
It does for the company.

[KC]

The State has no incentive to find out about corrupt cops - it won't loose any money.

If I kill someone, and bribe the witness, investigator to look the other way, then how do they lose money?



It does for the company.

And why is that?

[Luís Henrique]

Not if it means getting found out by a third party and losing your job.

Problem is, in your utopia bribes wouldn't be the exception, they would be the rule. They would be how the system works.

If I can pay a private police company, such private police company will protect my property. Else, they won't.

But, the more efficient the private police companies work, the less need for police services there will be. So, it will not be in the interest of the private police companies to be too much efficient. And they won't. Else, their market as whole would diminish, and some would be forced out of market - leading, slowly but surely, to a monopolistic situation, or, worse, to a harsher form of competition: all out war between private police companies. Who do you call now? Police is no longer an option.

Luís Henrique