My Concept Of Anarchy

[Foreward note: This was also posted at an anarchist forum dominated by socialists. The reaction largely consisted of mockery. I'm curious if most anarcho-capitalists would likewise be uncomfortable with what I consider to be the inherently diverse and pluralist result of consistantly applied anarchism]

All conflicts between people’s personal preferances are resolved through free association. This includes conflicts between how people want to organize economically or otherwise. An anarchist society is a highly complex and pluralist (polycentric) society, not a singular or monocentric model. Not a uniform society. An anarchist society is a spontaneous order resulting from free association (and by extention, free competition).

When people are free to voluntarily associate and disassociate into different groups and forms of organization, theoretically any preferance is possible and may co-exist peacefully side by side (primitivism, feminism, racism, socialism, capitalism, syndicalism, religion, atheism, etc.). Therefore some degree of tolerance would seem necessary for such a society to function smoothly.

Noone has the legitimate authority to impose their prefered form of organization onto anyone else. Everyone has the right to effectively secede as an individual from any form of organization. If you do not recognize the right of the individual to secede from your commune, secede from your union, secede from your buisiness, then you are not an anarchist. Someone who coerces or forces others into a given organization is a ruler by definition.

Different preferances must compete on their own merits in a free society, not be imposed. If your particular preferance is truly superior, then it will tend to win out in free competition. If it is not, over time it will be outcompeted and you will have to deal with that. In effect, an anarchist society is a free market between forms of organization in and of itself. There is no singular model for a free society. A free society is whatever the result is of people voluntarily associating and disassociating, which inevitably is going to be a mixed bag.

This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle. Your personal preferances do not have a monopoly on freedom. Your personal preferances do not define anarchism. Whatever personal or cultural preferances you have are only an afterthought in relation to the general principle.

As I see it, the bulk of social anarchists are irrationally intolerant of market anarchists, and vice versa. Many social anarchists deny that market anarchism really is anarchism and act as if advocation of socialistic forms of organization is an inherent requirement for one to be an anarchist. They seem to think that an anarchist society would uniformly reflect their preferances. Many anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, seem to think that all forms of socialism are inherently statist, which in a sense does detach them from anarchist tradition (which is predominately socialistic).

I think both sides are wrong in this respect. If one thinks in terms of a single model for an entire society, then one is still holding on to a statist mindset. Politics is essentially the art of imposing preferential models onto an entire society. A fact that many social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists alike, for different reasons and from different perspectives, seem to have trouble accepting is that "libertarian socialism" is a possible option within a free market - and that a significant portion of the debate between the two consists of nothing but semantics and a language game or barrier.

It might just be semantics, but my impression is that many of the "social" anarchists (not sure why they're dubbed such; perhaps because they're not economic anarchists?) see market exchange as inherently demeaning and exploitative, and see private property as the root of all hierarchy. I am able to deflect these silly criticisms, but they seem so deeply entrenched in these views that they rule out market anarchism automatically. My guess is that this is partially due to ignorance of basic economics and what market anarchism in fact consists in. It seems as soon as they hear the word "market" or "capitalism", rational thinking ceases. I have no problem with them attempting their communes or whatever they wish, provided they do not interfere with market orders. However, I also find their rejection of private property atavistic and reactionary. The problem is, on the one hand, "anarcho"-capitalists who are little else but vulgar libertarians who want the current model minus the state, and "anarcho"-communists/-socialists/-syndicalists who think they ought to have the right to violate market transactions, and justify the State whenever the opportunity comes up, in order to "tame" capitalism.

-Jon

 

That's a nice take. Things and folks are different everywhere. What works for me might suck for you.

I shouldn't say bad things about pinko's, but they all think they can run the world when most of them can barely run themeselves. They just become shivering crack addicts when folks get circled about personal responsibility and the sort.

Well, semantics are good to rap into agreement, sometimes. Like agreement of terms. Many terms have different meanings, but when we define those meanings we can solidify our perspectives?

If life was dog eat dog, there just wouldn't be too many dogs.

Brainpolice:

If one thinks in terms of a single model for an entire society, then one is still holding on to a statist mindset.

Exactly right.

 

I'd agree.  You can have all of these different ideologies so long as you aren't forcing someone to participate in them.  I've got no problem with socialist in general, just their insistance that I must give my money to the state so they can put a little in their pockets and whatever is left over give it to someone else who is too lazy to get a job and support themselves.

Brainpolice:

As I see it, the bulk of social anarchists are irrationally intolerant of market anarchists, and vice versa.

When I lived in Chicago the vast majority of my friends were socialists, syndicalists, and collectivist anarchists.  What they seem to focus on is hierarchy over force.  I think this is a major divisive issue with them since they feel capitalism creates hierarchy and hierarchy leads to a state.  Most of them think rules need to be created in order to prevent a state forming.  They don’t seem that concerned with force at all.  Personally I think they’re denying human nature, which includes hierarchy.

Out of curiosity did you post that at RevLeft?

I'm open to anyone who is in favor of reducing the state, regardless of whether or not they believe we should have one.

This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle.

If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how people want to personally spend their money and time! Do we call a free-market capitalist who personally wants to collect movies a "movie-capitalist" as opposed to a pottery-capitalist, clothing-capitalist, etc.? Of course not, and it's no different with anarchy. The reason the different types of anarchism have different names is because they describe radically opposing systems.

If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist. It doesn't matter where or how you spend your money and your time. If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists! Of course, they might be a few confused individuals in other "schools of anarchy" who really do believe in individual liberty; I'm confident they'll convert once they find out about anarcho-capitalism.

I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature.  Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.

Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems.  That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. 

Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.

 

Ego:

I'm open to anyone who is in favor of reducing the state, regardless of whether or not they believe we should have one.

This is why I am open to any "school" of anarchism so long as it is truly consistant with voluntaryism. Whether or not one personally objects to a particular school or preferance is ultimately irrelevant in terms of general principle.

If a given type of anarchism is entirely voluntaryist, it is anarcho-capitalism! It makes no sense to give a million names to the same system based on how an people personally want to spend their money and time! Do we call a free-market capitalist who personally wants to collect movies a "movie-capitalist" as opposed to a pottery-capitalist, clothing-capitalist, etc.? Of course not, and it's no different with anarchy. The reason the different types of anarchism have different names is because they describe radically opposing systems.

If you respect others' rights as individuals, you're an anarcho-capitalist. It doesn't matter where or how you spend your money and your time. If the other types of anarchists refuse to call themselves anarcho-capitalists, there's a reason! They aren't anarcho-capitalists! Of course, they might be a few confused individuals in other "schools of anarchy" who really do believe in individual liberty; I'm confident they'll convert once they find out about anarcho-capitalism.

 

Imo, the reason different types of anarchism have different names is not only because they describe radically opposing systems, but because any of the following: 1.) They describe different means of achieving supposedly similar goals.  2.) Some individuals realized certain definitions are no longer valid after they've been hijacked via mis-used by others, or 3.) Some individuals arrived at similar conclusions in developing thoughts, but placed different labels upon them, or possibly didn't label them at all.  

I think it makes more than enough sense to designate certain means from others in an effort to not make any other given umbrella term (in this case, anarcho-capitalism) a package deal in describing different schools of thoughts within anarchism.  This is partially why different labels with "-libertarian" developed, methinks.

 I have a question that I hope will be considered to be related to this post.  Basically I am wondering how geographic boundaries might affect the possibilities of the varied anarchist societies.  You say that an important part is simply that an individual can secede from an organization.

So how does that come into play when the organization is based on geography, or where you live?  Seems to me that if you move into any area that is covered by certain organizations and certain laws and such, then when you sign a contract to purchase the property, you are also agreeing to all the laws that exist at that particular time.  Can anyone argue against that thought?

And then what about when the laws change from that point?  At first I thought the individual should be free to not abide by any new laws that they did not specifically sign on as agreeing with, but then I wondered, if, by signing at the original purchase, you might also be consenting to the methods new laws would come about and so if they do, then you are bound by those too?

Thoughts?

Nitroadict:

I completly disagree with regards that denying hirearchy is denying human nature.  Indidivuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.

Human individuals also have a propensity (or varying degrees) of either rebellion or compliance with social & political systems.  That alone should discredit that hirearchy is inherently required for human nature. 

Imo, if there were any type of hirearchy that is common place amid human individuals, I would probably point to hirearchy of the self (what one feels is their place in the world, depending on their viewpoint, schema, etc.), & the hirearchy involved in families (which is genetically pre-determined to some extent), but not inherent political hirearchy, as it (political hirearchy) is not nessesary for humans to survive, which is evident due to the developed theories & systems against said political hirearchy existing in the first place.

 

 

I think you are defining "hierarchy" too narrowly.  At least more narrowly than in the sense that Ego is using it.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hierarchy:

4: the classification of a group of people according to ability or to economic, social, or professional standing; also : the group so classified

 

This is part of human nature - no two individuals are exactly alike.  There will naturally be people who are better at some things than others,  Hoppe would use the term natural elites. 

There is nothing statist about the concept of hierarchy, in the sense the I believe Ego is using it.

... and many of the *-libertarian schools are radically opposed to each other.

1.) They describe different means of achieving supposedly similar goals.

Individuals in a given school have different means of achieving the same goals; at the same time, an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-communist might agree on to how to achieve different goals. I can't agree that your point is valid.

  2.) Some individuals realized certain definitions are no longer valid after they've been hijacked via mis-used by others

Whenever this happens, the individuals who feel a certain label has been hijacked will usually abstain from denouncing the label, and will instead denounce the hijackers. Many libertarians abstain from calling themselves "libertarian". If asked why, they'll almost always say, "Well, I was a libertarian, but non-libertarians have hijacked the meaning of the word, so I prefer x". They will never say, "I disagree with what libertarianism stands for".

or 3.) Some individuals arrived at similar conclusions in developing thoughts, but placed different labels upon them, or possibly didn't label them at all.

Like I said, if those individuals find out about anarcho-capitalism and decide they don't agree with us, they aren't anarcho-capitalists!

I agree with Brainpolice when he says that anyone who believes in voluntaryism is working towards the same goal. In fact, I don't care what label we use (I'd prefer if it didn't involve the words "anarchy" or "capitalism"...).

I'm more than willing to work with anyone who wants to shrink the government, regardless of whether they are anarchist.

Debbie:

 I have a question that I hope will be considered to be related to this post.  Basically I am wondering how geographic boundaries might affect the possibilities of the varied anarchist societies.  You say that an important part is simply that an individual can secede from an organization.

So how does that come into play when the organization is based on geography, or where you live?  Seems to me that if you move into any area that is covered by certain organizations and certain laws and such, then when you sign a contract to purchase the property, you are also agreeing to all the laws that exist at that particular time.  Can anyone argue against that thought?

And then what about when the laws change from that point?  At first I thought the individual should be free to not abide by any new laws that they did not specifically sign on as agreeing with, but then I wondered, if, by signing at the original purchase, you might also be consenting to the methods new laws would come about and so if they do, then you are bound by those too?

Thoughts?

Any set of laws or rules (I think "rules" is more precise) would only necessarily be applicable within the geographic area of an individual's property.  It is possible (likely, in fact) that all the property owners in an area will agree on the same basic rules, but this need not be the case.

 

The idea that rules are necessarily applicable across property boundaries implies the existence of a state to enforce those laws - which is pretty much the antithesis of anarchy.

The only universal law in an anarchist society would be that it is never legitimate to initiate the use of force.

I fudged my argument completely; I was originally going to say there is a difference between social hierarchy & political hierarchy, whereas I would define political hierarchy as that which requires the state in order to exist, fosters the state's growth, as is used as a means of coercion, but I felt like I was over-reaching. 

I would've then gone on to say that social hierarchy is what we encounter in our everyday lives, families, friends, relationships, etc., but even still, I probably would've been defining hierarchy a bit narrowly lol.

Ego: I more or less agree, (specifically with the hijacking); I don't remember exactly what I was trying to argue other than I disagreed with the statement that different names are made only for radically opposing systems, when different names are created for similar systems that aren't radically different from one another (socialism & communism come to mind, although there is probably a better example out there...).  

I also disagree with: "...if those individuals find out about anarcho-capitalism and decide they don't agree with us, they aren't anarcho-capitalists!", as, most likely, not all of us label ourselves as anarcho-capitalists :|

 

Nitroadict:

I completely disagree with regards that denying hierarchy is denying human nature.  Individuals are capable of rising above such a supposed "inherent" nature that limits those incapable of consciousness; this is easily shown by the capacity for humans to develop anti-hirearchal, apolitical thought., and is furthered shown by efforts to enact these thoughts.

Some people are aggressive, some people are passive, some people are dominant, and some are submissive.  This is just variations of different personality types.  To suggest that the majority of humans are just going to stop a hierarchical structure anytime soon is kind of like saying t