Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[narskie]

I don't think there's any reason to fear a "tyranny of the majority" or tyranny of the collective.  At least, you should be much less afriad of that than a tyranny like ours, tyranny of a minority. 

Actaully the whole idea of tyranny of the majority is kinda interesting.  It's exactly what elites and their intellectual subordinates call democracy.  (Not to accuse anyone of being a corporate intellectual).  This idea again the regular people are bad and need their "betters" to tell them what to do.  And of course, their "betters" require huge wealth and priviledge in return for their wise and benevolent rule. 

Speakings of Chomsky, I think he best described anarchy as an exercise to see if various systems and institutions of power can bear a burden of proof of their legitimacy.  If it cannot be proven, then it is illegitimate and ought to be dismantled.  And the example he always uses is if his granddaughter runs out into a street and he grabs her arm, he believes that can be proven to be a legitimate exercise of power over another.  However most systems and institutions cannot bear that heavy burden of proof. 

So the split between "right" anarchists or so-called libertarians and "left" anarchists seems to be that the former believes government to be the most illegitimate institution of power and must be tackled first whereas the latter believes corporations and the whole idea of ownership of the means of production is the most illegitimate.  I think the mistake being made is that we cannot accept the argument that corporations are persons with rights.  It's true the government considers them persons with rights far greater than the rights persons of flesh and blood, but we don't have to accept that.  Once we do that we can agree they are the most illegitimate.

[Rezan]

Because historically, anarchist communities usually adopt some sort of governing structure over time.  Look at Christianity.  It started as an entirely anarchistic society, everyone was free to come and go as they please and they shared willingly with each other.  Many isolated christian communities were founded that existed in the early days, among them anarchistic ones.  But the anarchism vanished and the main branches of christianity became very heirarchical.

I turn your question around on you.  Why the wouldn't anarchism revert to some sort of governing body seeing as that's what's happened to every anarchist community ever?

If anarchism did revert, then it would no longer be anarchism, would it?

I don't think there's any reason to fear a "tyranny of the majority" or tyranny of the collective.  At least, you should be much less afriad of that than a tyranny like ours, tyranny of a minority.

Actaully the whole idea of tyranny of the majority is kinda interesting.  It's exactly what elites and their intellectual subordinates call democracy.  (Not to accuse anyone of being a corporate intellectual).  This idea again the regular people are bad and need their "betters" to tell them what to do.  And of course, their "betters" require huge wealth and priviledge in return for their wise and benevolent rule.

Speakings of Chomsky, I think he best described anarchy as an exercise to see if various systems and institutions of power can bear a burden of proof of their legitimacy.  If it cannot be proven, then it is illegitimate and ought to be dismantled.  And the example he always uses is if his granddaughter runs out into a street and he grabs her arm, he believes that can be proven to be a legitimate exercise of power over another.  However most systems and institutions cannot bear that heavy burden of proof.

So the split between "right" anarchists or so-called libertarians and "left" anarchists seems to be that the former believes government to be the most illegitimate institution of power and must be tackled first whereas the latter believes corporations and the whole idea of ownership of the means of production is the most illegitimate.  I think the mistake being made is that we cannot accept the argument that corporations are persons with rights.  It's true the government considers them persons with rights far greater than the rights persons of flesh and blood, but we don't have to accept that.  Once we do that we can agree they are the most illegitimate.

"The majority never has right on its side." - Henrik Ibsen, from An Enemy of the Public

Whereas you are right that a minority is more prone to corruption, a majority is more prone to ignorance.

It really is frightening how easily corporations and businessmen abused a law/what have you designed to prevent ethnic minorities from losing their land and property. It's completely appalling how the corporations purposely try to make them feel... human-like. We have relatively few corporations in Norway. If a corporation does something "bad", you can usually expect the government to kick their asses (not always, though, for obvious reasons).

[Servant Corps]

Well, the right-wing anarachists are interested in protecting "negative rights", you know, the rights that ensure that the government does not interfere in your affairs. You have the equal right of opportuinty, to succed or fail. I think the right-wing anarchists are afraid about 'equality of outcome' that would result if a government goes out and interfere in affairs. The mere intereferece of affairs is, after all, government coercion.

Not that I am a right-wing anarchist. But you do seem to insult them greatly.

I don't think there's any reason to fear a "tyranny of the majority" or tyranny of the collective.

The tyranny of the majority is a concept by John Stuart Mill. Mr. Mill was worried that if a majority believes something, minority views would most likely be belitted or laughed upon or hated, and hence the minority view would be suppressed. Mill hated the tyranny of majority and wanted all views to be respected.

I don't like Mill for many reasons. The tyranny of the majority is not one of them. I am against that tyranny, very much so, because I like having different views be promoted.

[E. Albright]

Oh. That's kinda what I expected about the "experiments" I talked about earlier, but I assumed that there would always be a head leader that tells what people do, after consulting the individuals within the society. (The leader has to consult the individuals, because if the individuals hate the leader, they can always leave. But if the individuals always have the possiblity to destroy the society by leaving it...then the leader never 'really' have power...)

Again, radically democratic. It's not that the members are free to abandon the leader so much as the leader is subject to election and immediate recall. I.e., the leader is elected to act on behalf of the body politic, not as leader of the body politic. The leader only has authority to the degree they carry out the will of the collective, and it can be that representatives should be elected ad hoc only when needed for specific tasks rather than sitting above the common members of society on an enduring basis. Decisions are made as democratically as possible, and one-man-management tends to run afoul such principals.

Why is it that hard to rent out a warehouse and run your anarachist society by yourself, right here, right now? I know people have done these societies before, and they succeded admirably, but meh.

The main reason is, again, scale. Well, scale, and ideological purity. If the point is to have an ideologically pure society or sub-society... it's not going to work all that well because you'll need to abide by the surrounding society's strictures. You'll have to pay taxes and probably obtain necessities (and possibly generate income via interaction with the surrounding society to do so). You'll have to abide by property laws of the surrounding society as well, so you'll have to either hold property (e.g., means of production) in common via some mechanism like a corporation (with all the legal baggage attached to that) or divide the property in law in a manner not reflected by the division ascribed by the sub-society. It's all well and good to pretend this isn't the case within the sub-society, but it would be in point of fact and could easily affect social and political dynamics.

Which is to say, if the point is ideological purity, you need to be able to ignore the surrounding society when it runs counter to the purity desired. That's non-trivial, to say the least, even if you can manage to be self-sufficient.

[E. Albright]

Well, the right-wing anarachists are interested in protecting "negative rights", you know, the rights that ensure that the government does not interfere in your affairs. You have the equal right of opportuinty, to succed or fail. I think the right-wing anarchists are afraid about 'equality of outcome' that would result if a government goes out and interfere in affairs. The mere intereferece of affairs is, after all, government coercion.

Not that I am a right-wing anarchist. But you do seem to insult them greatly.

They too often merit the insults. In their rush to ensure "freedom-to", they tend to ignore that it's not just governments that interfere in the affairs of individuals. They want their perfect freedom, and when it comes right down to it they tend to bridle at qualifications like "so long as it does not impair the freedom of others". They see nothing wrong with their own interference in the affairs of others, but they dislike the idea of others ganging up to interfere with them... or to "protect" each other from their rightful interference. Monopolies are innovation at work! Private armies to enforce contracts are just and equitable! Tragedy of the commons? What's that? But laws, police, and taxes are an insult to the Dignity of Humanity!

Okay, I caricature. A little. Maybe.

[mainiac]

I agree with E. Albright.

[CobaltKobold]

"equality of outcome"

See 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution

(Rather, read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.)

And isn't the mutation of the direction of this thread wondrous?

[Servant Corps]

Mr. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. did not MEAN for his story to be used to assault "equality of outcome". In fact, I wouldn't be surpised if he is for "postive rights". So meh.

[narskie]

While it's true in principle government interference in the lives of people is counter to anarchist ideals, we have to be pragmatic.  While we agitate for more freedom and to dismantle power systems we cannot allow people to starve or go without basic services. 

It's a delicate tightrope act, because while we agitate for a anarchist society the rich and powerful try to take advantage of the situation to just end welfare for the poor and social security.  That's why the Ron Paul movement is so dangerous because it's being used to justify ending social programs that help regular people while expanding corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts, the socialization of corporate risk and cost through the Pentagon etc. 

Social services must be the last to go because they are the only marginally redeeming feature of government and because we lose support of roughly 1/3-1/2 of the american people who in one way or another rely on these services. 

[mainiac]

Call me a cold hearted bastard, but I'd gladly give up every social service out there before I give up the Federal Reserve and Treasury.  Because y'know, I really like living in a country where we have a currency with which to conduct our transactions.

The government is a lot like the free market in one regard.  It's biggest effects are all carried out by an invisible hand.  So we tend not to even notice it's role until something goes wrong.

Don't forget that the tragedy of the commons doesn't always refer to a positive right for a single group or interest.  Most of the time, the tragedy of the commons is exactly what it's name sounds like, where the entire group needs to act for the entire groups benefit.