Titles Wrong, Concept’s Right

This illustrates the fundamental flaw of all authoritarian philosophies quite handily… The author titles is as “anarchy in one lesson”, but actually it’s liberty in one lesson.

This is the problem with people who consider themselves anarchists… They don’t actually understand what anarchy is (and that it is in fact one of the WORST and LEAST fee states of man).

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

  • http://pith-n-vinegar.blogspot.com/ Quincy

    People who have good solutions are able to speak to their ideas and convince people to adopt them voluntarily. “I know better” is the argument of the idiot who wants to be tyrant.

  • MingoV

    My teaching tool for anarchists is the movie Conan the Barbarian. That society is the end result of anarchy. A society isn’t very functional when the “good guys” are an illiterate thug, a thief, and an assassin.

  • DobbsHead

    I think you are mistaking the ‘anarchy’ that teenagers seem to support, and anarchism as a social-political philosophy. I’m not an anarchist myself, but it’s fundamentally not a tyrannical system nor would it necessarily lead to a tyrannical system. It has a lot in common with modern libertarianism in terms of principles, actually, it just goes a few steps further.

    Just to set this straight, by anarchism I mean the claim that we don’t need rulers or hierarchical social structures, and that such structures are wrong. Western society has moved (in my mind anyway) more are more towards anarchism by abolishing hereditary rule and creating rule of law to replace rule by charisma. Despite the decentralization in who rules and how they rule, our society continues to function.

    The anarchists even have some criticisms of capitalism worth considering. For example, anarchists point out that the way we define ownership in American capitalism is arbitrary. For example: imagine somebody joins a company and works her way into mid-upper management. That company is a big part of her life and the company is what it is because of her work, but she isn’t granted an ownership stake by default in the company as a natural part of her hard work. Yes some companies give stock as compensation, but it isn’t part of the default structure of the company. Instead, the investors are given total ownership and decision making power because they had the money to start with.

    We can see that our system has strain along these lines from the mere existence of unions: workers strike because they feel a company isn’t treating them fairly.

    Even if you think this criticism is well answered by our system, it’s worth considering because it reveals a normative bias toward thinking that the way we do things is the only way to do things.

    Sorry for the long-winded drive by comment, but this is something I’ve been mentally wrestling with for awhile and it helps to write it out and (maybe) get some feedback.