Penn Jillette is No Longer A Libertarian
Penn Jillette is No Longer A Libertarian
Penn Jillette is No Longer A Libertarian
People can cooperate without the need for a hierarchy. They can agree that some actions are bad and to punish people without an elite doing so.
If you want to learn more, there are tons of resources. Here's a few:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-r-what-is-anarchism
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
You don't need an "elite" for there to be a heirarchy. I know what anarchism is I just disagree that it's an effective ideology for post-industrial humanity. The world is too complex, our choices have too many consequences, for individuals to make good decisions without ceding some responsibility of knowledge to specialists. This means regulatory bodies, lobbyists, and ideally a democratic means of appointing people to these bodies without being at the short-sighted whims of whoever is suddenly mad that they aren't allowed to fill in a bunch of marshes to build a commune.
I don't think heirarchy intrinsically means class divide, which is the part I see as important. Full disclosure: I most identify with authoritarian-leftism with sympathies to anarchism as a utopian ideal. My education in ecology taught me that people are not to be trusted without strong regulatory agencies, as much as I'd like to believe that individuals generally want to do right.
You don't need an "elite" for there to be a heirarchy.
Yeah, someone has to be. That's what a hierarchy is. Someone is above others and has control. That's basically the definition.
The world is too complex, our choices have too many consequences, for individuals to make good decisions without ceding some responsibility of knowledge to specialists. This means regulatory bodies, lobbyists, and ideally a democratic means of appointing people to these bodies without being at the short-sighted whims of whoever is suddenly mad that they aren't allowed to fill in a bunch of marshes to build a commune.
This does not rule out Anarchism.
To go back to this:
I know what anarchism is...
I'm not so sure. It can be a vast number of things. It does not mean no rules, no government, no regulations, or whatever else. In fact, I would argue those are essential to some degree or it'd be gone in an instant.
Government is heirarchy, it is the step of organization beyond a cooperative where people are making decisions in lieu of the whole. An elected representative has de facto authority. If someone can opt out of being governed in this way then there are no rules, just suggestions.
Government is heirarchy
It is not. It can be, but it is not a fundamental aspect of it.
An elected representative has de facto authority. If someone can opt out of being governed in this way then there are no rules, just suggestions.
Sure. Not in opposition to Anarchism.
I recommend you visit the links above. You should be able to find the answers to your issues. For this case, this addresses some of it:
Alright, I'm at an actual computer now so I'm to go through bit by bit and you can tell me where my apparent misunderstanding is.
Your sources do a lot of dancing to avoid defining their principle ideas, and mutual understanding of concepts is integral to constructive discourse, so I'm going to do my best here: Anarchy opposes coercion, authority, and hierarchy, particularly that which comes from a state.
It’s a lack of hierarchy, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have government, rules, and protections.
Right away we have problems. The concept of free-association does mean there are no rules or protections. Not real ones anyway. Rules and regulations require an enforcement authority or else they are merely suggestions. You are free to make a rule and someone else is free to ignore it. What gives you the right to enforce your rule?
If something does grant you the right or ability then that thing, whatever it is, is a hierarchy of power.
Government is heirarchy [sic]
It is not. It can be, but it is not a fundamental aspect of it.
Government is a tricky thing to nail down because it covers a wide range of scales and intents. At its most basic the idea of governance is the codification and/or centralization of rules and processes. This can be the bylaws of a small cooperative or the many branches and layers of a nation. The single common thread is that the body exists to do something in lieu of or at the behest of a greater population, it is an alternative to direct democracy. This means that the government body has the authority, granted or taken, to represent its constituents.
Compare this with a think-tank, where the group exists to make recommendations but has no power to create policy or enforce on their own. This is not a government.
People can cooperate without the need for a hierarchy.
Yes, this is what I mean when I said "Anarchy [is] only possible if everyone engages in good faith.
They can agree that some actions are bad and to punish people without an elite doing so.
So they grant themselves the right to enforce their will on others, and you say this isn't "authority"? This not a hierarchy of power, an organized group coercing behavior through violence? What of the consent of the governed?
I like the ideals, and I support them inasmuch as this kind of cooperative and stateless utopia is the theoretical goal of classic Marxist Communism, but this freedom requires a much higher level of trust and knowledge than I think humanity is capable of. Opposing all forms of authority now, when we're facing the existential threats of climate change and broad resource mismanagement, is a mistake. Now we need people with the means to reverse course, with the power to enforce policy, and with the speed and focus to work before it's too late.
Your sources do a lot of dancing to avoid defining their principle ideas...
No they don't. It's just a very broad political viewpoint with a ton a varied opinions within it. No two anarchists will believe the same thing, and that's true for all political beliefs, which is why they're all like this and hard to define specifically.
Right away we have problems. The concept of free-association does mean there are no rules or protections. Not real ones anyway. Rules and regulations require an enforcement authority or else they are merely suggestions. You are free to make a rule and someone else is free to ignore it. What gives you the right to enforce your rule?
Mutual cooperation and direct democracy are ways to come up with agreed upon rules. Not everyone will agree with all of them, but it will be agreed that the majority want something. There will still be a need for enforcement, yes. That doesn't require a hierarchy. Everyone will be equal in voting and equal in how it's enforced.
If something does grant you the right or ability then that thing, whatever it is, is a hierarchy of power.
No, because everyone will be equal in its creation and decisions. A flat plane is not a hierarchy.
Yes, this is what I mean when I said "Anarchy [is] only possible if everyone engages in good faith.
No. People who don't engage in good faith will be removed by the cooperation of everyone else. Just like the" Paradox of tolerance" is not a Paradox, because it's based on a social contract and breaking it means you're no longer protected by it. The same applies here. If you break the social contract then punishment must be applied.
You are coming to this conversation with prior assumptions, not an open mind. I'm not an expert on Anarchism, but there is plenty of information out there that can answer your questions better than I can. I would recommend being open to the idea that your beliefs of what Anarchism are are wrong or what's the point?
No they don’t. It’s just a very broad political viewpoint with a ton a varied opinions within it. No two anarchists will believe the same thing, and that’s true for all political beliefs, which is why they’re all like this and hard to define specifically.
Then my interpretation is as valid as yours.
Mutual cooperation and direct democracy are ways to come up with agreed upon rules. Not everyone will agree with all of them, but it will be agreed that the majority want something. There will still be a need for enforcement, yes. That doesn’t require a hierarchy. Everyone will be equal in voting and equal in how it’s enforced.
This process creates a hierarchy, a majority in-group that gets their way and a minority out-group that does not.
No, because everyone will be equal in its creation and decisions. A flat plane is not a hierarchy.
And a rich man is equally not allowed to steal bread or sleep under a bridge. Starting from a level playing field does not mean that things remain equal through the process.
No. People who don’t engage in good faith will be removed by the cooperation of everyone else. Just like the" Paradox of tolerance" is not a Paradox, because it’s based on a social contract and breaking it means you’re no longer protected by it. The same applies here. If you break the social contract then punishment must be applied.
If it only works by removing people you disagree with then it requires buy-in, you're just removing everyone who isn't engaging in good faith so you don't have to count them. This does not refute my initial claim. There is nothing intrinsic to anarchism that defends against bad-faith actors from hijacking the process, there are no checks against greedy thugs with lots of friends.
You are coming to this conversation with prior assumptions, not an open mind. I’m not an expert on Anarchism, but there is plenty of information out there that can answer your questions better than I can.
I went through this half a lifetime ago and ultimately decided anarchism didn't make sense to me. I think something akin to a Leninist vanguard party is a necessary evil, and I think some kind of rigid law-and-order structure will always be necessary.
I would recommend being open to the idea that your beliefs of what Anarchism are are wrong or what’s the point?
If I wasn't open to it I wouldn't have gotten this far. I think you're earnest even if I disagree with some of your assertions and I'm sorry that I'm sometimes a dick. It's rare that someone outside the big three lefty domains will engage like this.