Deep down we all are anarchists, most just don't realise it

kon

The "no likes" thread reminded me of several discussions about politics I had with people over the past years. Since I didn't want to derail the other thread I am branching off my thoughts here as well.
One common theme is that a lot of people think a ruler is an absolutely necessity and what makes a civilization civilized. And another thing what makes a civilization civilized is obeying rules and following orders.
Nothing could be further from the truth, these mechanisms are what actually prevents civilized behaviour.
Another thing that is completely misunderstood by the average statist is what anarchy means and what it entails. So here is a very good explanation of what anarchy isn't:

And a video of James Corbett showing the problem with authority and potential solutions

gluon

Yes, unfortunately anarchy is misunderstood by the majority of people. It doesn't help that media itself doesn't seem to know the real meaning and often misuse the word in news casts to describe such things as vandalism or just chaotic disorder in general. Interestingly I think the way the word sounds doesn't help either. It somehow feels like something that goes against something else.

Of course, if we go by its etymology, like we should perhaps do more often, it means without someone ruling. Doesn't sound so bad now, but then again, like you mentioned, we have this mental model of order = strong leadership, or a ruler, engrained in our brains since childhood...

Concepts like free association and cooperation or the non-agression principle that are familiar to us with libertarian leaning, sound foreign to other people in my daily experience. This kind of videos do a good job in enlightening the subject, so it's always a nice move to share them.

kon

Thanks for making me realise something! I never thought about it that way, but now that you point it out, I think I have felt the same subconsciously. The "a" prefix inherently sounds negative because of it's meaning, even when that is not the intended focus.
Maybe a better word would be "self-ownership". It points to what the idea affirms rather than what it rejects. Instead of anarchy I shall start using that term more often going forward.

kon

Please help me steelman this short introduction to the ethics of coercion - specifically, why granting any authority a special right to coerce peaceful people is both ill-advised and immoral by definition and CANNOT end well.
It is a side mission of mine these days, and I have been writing a lot because it helps me process and organize my thoughts more efficiently. For me, this is one hill to die on if needed - it matters that much to me because I can see the implications.
Let me know if anything is logically inconsistent or not explained well enough. Thanks!

This message - and the book linked below - are dedicated to two people: the first person who, because of reading this, refuses an order to harm someone else - and the person who, as a result, is not harmed.

Let me ask you, the reader, a simple question:
Do you consider yourself to be an ethical, obedient taxpayer?

Ok - that was a trick question. There is no such thing as moral obedience in the unconditional sense. It is an oxymoron.

Obedience is only moral when it is conditional on your own moral judgment. That is, you comply because you judge the action to be right - not because someone claims the right to command. This is not how "governments" operate. Governments claim a standing right to command and a standing right to punish disobedience, regardless of your personal consent or moral evaluation.

If, just a moment ago, your mind went - "Yeah, I pay taxes and I am moral and a good person" - pause.

Right now, when you pay taxes, you help fund a system whose defining feature is coercion: it ultimately relies on threats against peaceful people to secure compliance. I am not denying that you try to be a decent person in everyday life - most people do, to the best of their ability. The problem begins when the state is treated as morally special: when you grant it implicit legitimacy by playing the voting game, by consuming political media as if it were a serious moral process, by accepting lies and propaganda as normal, or by participating in the theater yourself - or, at the very least, by funding the machine while insisting it represents ethics.

As more and more becomes visible, the whole thing can start to feel like a badly executed Truman Show run by people in expensive suits who are insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

Paying taxes under threat is understandable. The point is not to condemn individuals for navigating reality. The point is the belief that obedience itself is a virtue - that "authority" can turn wrong into right, and that a title or office can morally justify what would otherwise be condemned.

Before you get defensive - I am not assigning personal blame. I am saying this because I want you to take your moral judgment back. A society trained to outsource conscience to "commands" is a society built for disaster - and we keep walking toward that cliff while arguing about symptoms instead of causes.

The following claims are developed in this book by Larken Rose:
https://a.co/d/hcTti3k (highly recommended)

The belief in "authority" - which includes belief in "government" - is irrational and self-contradictory because it rests on a moral double standard. It demands one set of rules for ordinary people and another set for those who claim power. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in "authority" becomes the arch-enemy of humanity because it normalizes coercion and calls it virtue.

Ask yourself: what can "authority" do, morally, that you and I cannot do morally?

If the answer includes "things that would be criminal if I did them" - taking money without consent, threatening peaceful people, caging them for noncompliance, initiating violence - then "authority" is not a moral principle. It is an excuse. A label does not change the ethical nature of an act. A uniform does not transform coercion into virtue. A vote does not transform coercion into consent, especially for those who never consented, never voted, voted against, or are born into it.

If you do not mind death and destruction, oppression and suffering, injustice and violence, repression and torture, helplessness and despair, perpetual conflict and bloodshed - then teach your children to respect "authority", and teach them that obedience is a virtue.

If, on the other hand, you value peaceful coexistence, compassion and cooperation, freedom and justice - then teach your children the principles of self-ownership.

Teach them to extend compassion beyond tribe and faction - not merely to a preferred group, but to all human beings, and as far as they can reasonably extend it, to all living creatures.

Teach them to speak their minds, especially under peer pressure. Teach them to stand up to bullies instead of joining them. Teach them the difference between defensive force and aggression - and teach them how to defend themselves.

Teach them that rules and laws do not make a society great. People do. A society becomes great when individuals respect boundaries, consent, and equal rights - not when they are trained to obey.

And teach them to recognize and reject the belief in "authority" for what it is: a claim that some people may initiate coercion against others as a matter of right.

When conscience and commands collide, we choose conscience.

gluon

Your words are already well articulated and at least for someone like me, who has already gone through the same thought process as early as 2010, it comes as natural. I think the point is clear, the moral analogies are solid and the underlying message, which basically is just about being a good person and using no coercion, sounds logical to most human beings, who like you said, are good at their core.

However, from my own experience, trying to explain all this to the ones I love and care about, or just to some random person with whom I talk, hardly succeeds. I don't think the problem is how we word the arguments, nor the arguments themselves. The problem is that most people don't really want to hear it. For them, accepting that things aren't what we believed them to be since we were kids and that reality is so brutally harsh and violent is too much of a shock.

For instance, I often casually agree with friends and relatives or strangers that taxes are theft, but then if you go one step beyond and say the author of such theft is the government and therefore the ethics are all broken, they mentally refuse to simply accept the world is so upside down... I think it's a self-defense mechanism of the human brain. Keeping internal consistency so that our mental model of the world does not collapse. This is also why we comply with all these arbitrary rules without much questioning...

I admire your commitment to enlighten the others, while at the same time, I think to myself that unfortunately it might make no significant difference. Maybe because I'm getting old and some mental energy is gone, or simply because I'm too focused on me and the close ones. Maybe because hope is somewhat worn and fading ever more. Or maybe simply because I try to entertain my brain with stuff that makes this heavy life most of us live somehow lighter.

kon

I hear you, my friend, and appreciate taking the time to respond and to share your thoughts and experiences. <3

gluon

kon

While reading my own words above I wonder if I might've inadvertently sound too pessimistic to your eyes, causing some discouragement. That was not my intention. I also believe the only way to profoundly improve a society is by education and especially doing so a little bit outside the usual textbooks we are told to read at school. I guess I just lack the energy to do so, but the fact you seem mindful about the people surrounding you and society in general is quite nice to see. Particularly in these weird times we're going through...