Why I Am An Anarchist
catb.org
Why I Am An Anarchist
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#2This article explain why the author calls himself an anarchist, but not what he defines "anarchist" to mean. It is simply someone who opposes any form of state government? Even if the majority of the people want state government? If so, by what means would the author seek to impose anarchy against the will of people, and how would that be better than the problems of democracy that he rails against?
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#3Shoes are bad, you know who wore shoes? Nazis!
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#4ESRs historical analysis is possibly one of the few things less compelling that the rest of achievements whether coding or writing. I couldn't bring myself to read his Oral Sex Guide, so perhaps I'm being unfair.
The year before, the Nazi Party couldn't round up more than about 45% of the vote; it's worth noting that these 90% numbers (both the later 1933 election after all the other parties were banned, and the referendum) came after the Nazis controlled pretty much everything. Reporting this as the logical and inevitable failure of the democratic process is like concluding the same thing when various pseudo-democracies around the world report 99% YES votes for their glorious leader ("we can do better"!).
The rest of it then meanders into the weeds of childish libertarian lunacy, standard territory for ESR.
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#5This article explain why the author calls himself an anarchist, but not what he defines "anarchist" to mean. It is simply someone who opposes any form of state government? Even if the majority of the people want state government? If so, by what means would the author seek to impose anarchy against the will of people, and how would that be better than the problems of democracy that he rails against?
Nobody said anything about imposing anarchy on anyone. The author is postulating that government in all common forms has consistently failed in it's (implied) responsibility to function without inflicting undue hardship on the governed and in lieu of acceptably functional structured alternatives, a switch to pure anarchism may be the only way for the people to avoid said hardships at the hands of government.
Personally I think ditching a couple hundred years of (largely arbitrary) legislation, not to mention taxation, is pretty appealing. Admittedly not everyone in our society is mature enough to cope with a world where nobody's "in charge" and there are some fairly thorny issues surrounding stuff like infrastructure and personal security but several sound proposals (on paper anyway) to deal with these complications have been put forward over the years.
Additional light reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#6This article explain why the author calls himself an anarchist, but not what he defines "anarchist" to mean. It is simply someone who opposes any form of state government? Even if the majority of the people want state government? If so, by what means would the author seek to impose anarchy against the will of people, and how would that be better than the problems of democracy that he rails against?
Except in unanimity, there is no "will of the people".
There are two parts to what states do: things that any individual can do, and things that only the state can do. Anarchy is just the limit of the observation that if one person doesn't have the right to do something, then two do not either.
Of course, this sidesteps a lot of questions, particularly about what "the right to do something" means and where it comes from.
In spite of the fact that Raymond is a hacker, I'm not sure that Hacker News is an appropriate venue for this discussion, though. :)
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#7This article explain why the author calls himself an anarchist, but not what he defines "anarchist" to mean. It is simply someone who opposes any form of state government? Even if the majority of the people want state government? If so, by what means would the author seek to impose anarchy against the will of people, and how would that be better than the problems of democracy that he rails against?
> ...and how would that be better than the problems of democracy that he rails against?
I can't speak for the author, but the general idea is that because anarchy ("no rule") precludes the monopoly on violence that exists in state systems, there is better hope of some force countervailing the worst paroxysms of the majority. Think an extreme form of checks and balances.
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#8So governments are dangerous and not to be blindly trusted. Agreed. That does not mean that we'll be better off with zero government. Human organizations do not scale beyond tens or hundreds without government. The root problem is the flawed nature of people, their "short-sightedness and moral blindness" as the author correctly points out.
Anyway, the author needs a lesson in logic and logical fallacy.
I myself am an anarchist at heart (in the vain of Tolstoy), but a realist in my brain.
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#9His argument is basically that all governments can become corrupted, so we should have no government. The first part of his argument is obviously true, but is far from sufficient justification for his conclusion. It completely ignores all the good things that come from government (social services, police, military defense). It also ignores that the lack of government can also become corrupted. In places like Somalis, where there was effectively no government, pseudo-governments form (like the various warlords, the Islamic Courts Union, and Al-Shabaab).
Re: Why I Am An Anarchist
#10I'm personally a minarchist. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism):
> Minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism, small government, or limited-government libertarianism) is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.