Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:46:04 -0400 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: Jon Lebkowsky On Anarchy in the U.S. To: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
[Note from Matthew Gaylor: This form of anarchy is completely different than the anarcho capitalism typified by thinkers such as David Friedman http://www.best.com/~ddfr/. If you want to check out the real deal go to http://www.libertarian.nl/libertarisme/anarcho-capitalism.htm. Murry Rothbard had a great definition of the State "...The State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large. The state is the only legal institution in society that acquires its revenue by the use of coercion, by using violence and threat of violence on its victims. The state is, therefore, a centralized, regularized organization of theft" What Jon is speaking of below aren't the freedom loving anarchists like Friedman but rather left wing commie "anarchists". I think you'll find Jon's "encounter" humorous.]
Anarchy in the U.S.
I followed a link from an anti-WTO page to a chat room where a bunch of people were talking politics, specifically anarchist politics. I found out what an idiot I am about anarchy.
They were talking about 'organizing' with anarchy as their 'goal.' I said if you organize with anarchy as your goal, that seems antithetical to the meaning of anarchy...?
No, they said, anarchy is all about organization. It's definitely not about disorder.
I checked my dictionary: 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
Omigod, no, they said. You can never believe a dictionary definition. Dictionaries are businesses.
I have a copy of that recent Harper's on my to-read pile, the one where David Foster Wallace explores the politics of dictionaries, so okay, I get that dictionary definitions should be taken with a grain of context. But hey...
They said people, not dictionaries, define terms.
But if you don't have any standard definitions for words, how can you communicate effectively?
Well, you're communicating with us right now...
Yes, I am, but (I wrote a few nonsense words, hoping to make my point).
But those words aren't in the dictionary! someone said.
Well, precisely, that's my point: if you create your own words or your own meanings for words, there can be no communication.
That's why it's important for you to define your terms up front, someone said.
Okay, cool, but I still don't get this thing about anarchy and organization.
It's organizing without hierarchy, someone explained.
Okay, well... maybe that's closer to the definition, certainly closer to the root (from anarchos having no ruler). I guess if no single person's in charge, you could see that as an absence of government. And having no leader might imply a lack of hierarchy.
I could think of other words for organizing by consensus, whichseems to be what they're about... words with less unfortunate connotations. You might call it pure democracy, where no single person has more authority for action than any other. We normally think of democracy as 'majority rule,' which can result in a tyranny of the majority, but if you work from consensus, that mitigates the problem. Or you could say that the group is self-organizing.
I figure that, no matter how seemingly reasonable the view of 'anarchy' by small groups of self-professed anarchists, if the commonly-accepted definition has odious connotations, it would be politically expedient to choose another word. (I also pointed out, before I left, that tyrannies impose their own definitions and their own views of history, and I wondered if this set of 'anarchists,' if they were empowered, would behave differently. Of course, they would say that the goal is diffusion of power, but guess what? Sooner or later we have to live in the real world.)
In the course of this discussion, they told me I hadn't read the right texts. Looking around at a site operated by the authoritarian corporate knowledge elite at Encyclopedia Britannica, I found a piece that describes whassup:
Andrew Rutten, in Independent Review, 3/1/99: Can Anarchy Save Us from Leviathan? http://www.britannica.com/magazine?ebsco_id=335596
"For a small but growing group of anarchists, rehabilitating anarchy is only the first step toward reconstructing liberal political theory. For them, liberal theory errs by treating the state as a necessary evil, rather than an unnecessary one. The anarchists argue that the state is evil because it invariably abuses its power, violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, and that it is unnecessary because even without it we would still have social order and respect for each other's tights. From their perspective, "limited government" is a contradiction in terms, a project that simply cannot succeed. Thus, for them, the job of the political economist is not to tame the state but to teach us how to do without it."
and
"When performed carefully, rational-choice analysis suggests that anarchy is far more complicated than either de Jasay or his Hobbesian foes make it out to be. Anarchy's foes err by asserting that it is inconsistent with social order; both theory and evidence show that the richness of social relations may lead even the most brutal egoists to cooperate rationally. And anarchy's friends, like de Jasay, err by asserting that its lack of hierarchy is equivalent to a lack of coercion or that anarchic institutions are accepted in ways that statist institutions are not. The social order in anarchy often rests on appeals to the basest sort of self-interest."
Worth exploring... I'll be thinking about this... posted by jon lebkowsky <jonl@well.com> 4/23/2001 06:19:34 AM
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/