An great tool and resource

Because of the immense value of the following, I have taken it from my old blog and reposted it here for good measure.  Please, pass it on to anyone who needs support or assistance in a debate for it works as an excellent resource and guide on how to argue Anarchism.

Within the depths of the Forums of the Libertarian Left, a poster by the name of the manbear2pig published the following, a particularly detailed list and explanation of the arguments commonly experienced when arguing for Anarchism with statists.  It’s a particularly good piece, and I would encourage any reader here to take a look through — particularly anyone who has recently adopted Anarchism as a political philosophy.  Those be the times where we run the greatest risk of disillusionment.

I have edited the structure a little bit so it better suits the blog medium and removed the final two or three sentences from the first paragraph in order to hopefully allow the piece to act less as a topic starter in a forum thread.  Other than this, the post is in its original form and I’m sure manbear2pig will forgive me for these slight alterations.

A Compendium of Comebacks to Common Clichés

Talking about issues with people one-on-one will be one of the things we do the most. I’ve done a lot of debating with people, and have found that ‘mainstream’ arguments against anarchism tend to fall into a handful of main categories. There are certain debate templates that in my experience lead down a dead end and should be avoided.

1. It’s good to start by saying what it is exactly that you advocate: i.e., that people must govern themselves by forming voluntary associations, and so on. This puts the cards on the table so the other person can’t just say “Without laws we’d just be running around killing each other!” or some such thing. A big problem is that a lot of people don’t even know that anarchism is an actual political philosophy — they just think it’s an adolescent desire to overthrow and destroy. It’s important to keep in mind that most people (Internet trolls excluded) oppose anarchism because they actually fear the concept of no government, not because they just want to be a jerk. The goal is not to attack them, but to change the way they see things.

2. “If you hate government so much, why don’t you move to Somalia?”
This is one of the most obnoxious, trollish arguments that we have probably all encountered at some point or another. If you don’t feel like explaining the history of the monstrous fiction known as “Somalia” and how it is a far more damning indictment of the concept of the State than of “anarchism”, there is a very simple response. Just ask, “Should the Somalis have obeyed Siad Barre rather than overthrown him?” Now the troll is in a trap: if he answers yes, this brings up a lot of uncomfortable issues like that whole Declaration of Independence thing, and whether you have the duty to obey someone who has arbitrarily declared himself to be your master(like someone who kidnaps you). If no, he’s an anarchist!! In short, put him on defensive. The key issue is whether the entity carved out by British and Italian war criminals over a hundred years ago ought to be enforced at gunpoint, or whether that whole thing about consent of the governed has any meaning or if it’s just 18th century trash.

3. “Anarchism would just lead to warlords…”
Here I like to ask how it is that we have the freedoms that we have at all. After all, the human race exists in a state of anarchy. It wasn’t until recently that we were aware of this: previously, most people believed that God himself (or the gods) ruled us through our “leaders”. Obedience to them, however, did not guarantee the slightest bit of freedom…or peace, or justice, or even the survival of civilization for that matter. (see the fall of the Roman empire for details.) In fact, as we say Liberty is the Mother of Order, we might also say that Liberty is the Daughter of Disobedience. The only reason we have any rights at all is because historically we were willing to fight for them ourselves — if we had only relied on the benevolence of our rulers to guarantee freedom and peace, we’d still be in the middle ages.

In other words, anarchism, and the refusal to obey and be ruled, is the ONLY way we can prevent people from becoming warlords. It’s a rather profound point, once it sinks in.

4. All appeals to “limited government”, “the law”, etc. are inherently anarchistic. When I argue politics, I frequently hear something along the lines of “I think our Constitutional system with checks and balances was a pretty good idea…” but point out the absurdity of thinking that a piece of paper magically guarantees our rights. It’s pretty simple: either we refuse to have certain things done to us, or we are at the mercy of a supposedly benevolent caste of, well, warlords. And who gets to decide what we’re allowed to refuse the government to do to us?

5. “What if nobody wanted to [build roads/fire departments/take your pick]?”
The absurdity of this “argument” is pretty self-evident; what if the state decided it didn’t want to do these things? However, this relates to what I think is a huge mistake anarchists (myself included) often make when debating. Too often the argument gets framed in such a way that the anarchist is forced to argue that some future anarchist utopia would work perfectly, and then the statist merely has to suggest that something might go wrong. ALWAYS put the statist on the defensive, where he belongs. You don’t have to sketch out what an anarchist society would look like, or how it would prevent itself from collapsing, or whatever. The burden is on the statist to prove that obeying those who claim the right to rule us is better than thinking for ourselves, in the face of all the historical evidence.

6. Relating to #5…any argument that involves how something might go wrong in an anarchist society — “What if a new dictator rose up? What if we were invaded by another country? What if society degenerated into endless vendettas? What if the people in one area decided to impose a theocracy?” should be immediately turned around with the question of what if these happened even (gasp) with a state in power? These are all scenarios that assume the worst of human nature, so we ought to, for the sake of argument, explore what horrible things could potentially happen if we gave the final authority to a group of, well, humans. Of course imposing a government on people has never actually led to brutality and chaos, so there’s no need to use historical examples…just imagining a hypothetical situation in which government might go wrong should be enough.

To sum it up, any problem that could happen in an anarchist society could also happen in a state-run society. Imposing a state solves none of these problems and adds several of its own.

7. “Our government is democratically elected!”
Most non-anarchists in the Western world practice the Orwellian concept of doublethink in their political views. On the one hand, we all spout out about “popular sovereignty”, “the will of the people”, and “democracy” from our kindergarten civics classes. On the other hand, it’s important to remember, the knee-jerk arguments that people typically use against anarchy are the exact same arguments that were used against democracy in the 18th century. This is significant: democracy is the same thing as anarchy, properly understood. So at least the oldschool critics of democracy and republicanism were consistent: they believed in the divine right of kings, or in a Hobbesian absolute monarchy. So-called democrats today are not. So this is an issue worth exploring.

Basically, as I see it, either people have the right to govern themselves or they don’t. There’s no in-between. As I mentioned on a separate post, the best way to explore whether we are governing ourselves currently, is to ask if a state could secede, if the majority of people wanted to(it isn’t even necessary to discuss the concept of unanimous consent; for the sake of argument we can assume that “the majority” is enough).

If the person says yes (So far, I have forced one governmentarian down this road of logic!!) then they must logically believe counties can secede, and generally that any government created by a group of people coming together to protect themselves is legitimate, any government created any other way is not.
If the person says no, presumably it’s because they think the majority of people in the nation wouldn’t allow it. But this presupposes that “the Union” is a valid political entity, but a territory chosen by the majority of the people within isn’t. So how are borders legitimately created, if not by the decision of the people? This question is even more powerful in other parts of the world, such as, say, France. The only reason Burgundy is part of France, and not its own country, is that Robert II invaded it 1000 years ago. If the people of Burgundy wanted to govern themselves freely, why would this criminal and illegitimate act trump the will of the people, if France is a “democracy”? Also, find an act of secession that your opponent supports — there must be at least one, unless he/she is some sort of medievalist. 13 colonies from Britain, Estonia/Ukraine/Georgia/etc. from the USSR, Finland from Russia, France/Germany from the Carolingian empire (!), any part of Europe from the Roman empire, any African state from imperialism, etc. Find out why they support this.

Returning to our original secession example, if the reason the U.S.A. exists is that “the people” spontaneously came together and decided to form a union, then clearly any number of them could decide again to form a different union(which was the original idea of Jefferson and Madison anyway). Anyone who participates in a contract should be able to break off from it. Otherwise, the concept of majority rule presupposes the legitimacy of “the Union”, since if the U.S. came into existence because the majority of people in this geographical area spontaneously decided to form a union binding on the rest of us (which is obviously bullshit anyway, but pointing out what really happened is even more damning to claims that we are currently governing ourselves), then by the same logic two thugs could move into houses on either side of one person, declare the three of them to be a “nation”, and then do whatever they want to the 3rd person on the basis of majority rule.

So when people say democracy is the “rule of the majority”, the big question is, “the majority where?” It may be interesting to explore the Declaration of Independence at this point, which doesn’t say anything about “51%”, or of the sanctity of existing nation-states. In fact you might remind your democratic opponent that the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution really had nothing to do with the will of the majority: the rebels didn’t give a rat’s ass what people living in England, Ireland, etc. thought about their secession. In fact they didn’t even take an opinion poll on the concept of secession within the 13 colonies (I believe about a third of colonists were actively in favor of revolution by 1776). Food for thought…

8. “If obedience to law was purely voluntary, how would people punish murderers?” (the question asked by AmazingAtheist)

Now we’re getting into actual political philosophy, so if the governmentarian has made it this far, it’s a good sign.

The way I see it (although others may disagree), anarchism isn’t really about what people are allowed to do so much as it is about who’s doing the allowing. Libertarianism, broadly defined, could be seen as an ideology regarding what the laws ought to be. Thus, anarchism is the structure, and libertarianism/socialism(depending on your flavor) is the content of a free society. Anarchism does imply freedom, but it does not guarantee it per se. I think it’s important to make this point clear; a lot of people ask this because they sincerely don’t understand.

To sum up: in an anarchist society people would band together and form “governments” to regulate their own dealings with other people. Thus murdering, attacking or robbing someone would get you in trouble with their “government”, but that doesn’t mean that it rules you or is your government. So in interacting with other people, you would have to observe their rules, but that doesn’t mean that they rule you. That’s all a bit different from what we have now.

Although it’s probably not quite as developed, you can check out his blog, LifeAfterAuthority.

Souless? Not such a bad thing…

Mike Gogulski’s recently beginning the first stage in becomming  a stateless person got me thinking about ID, certificates, passports and all sorts of other paper.  Ever been stopped by a cop and asked for ID?  Then questioned for what seems to be no reason?  I have.  The first thing they always ask for, is ID.  It’s amazing isn’t it, that such a fundamental building block of fascism could be incorporate so voluntarily into a democracy.  The very words, “Hey, can I see some ID?” remind me of a softer version of the phrase, “Halt! Show me your papers.”  Can you see the trick being employed here?  The key difference between the phrases is that the former is a question and is found frolicking upon the tongues of cops who function under a democracy, whereas the latter is a command and is used where the officer no longer has to hide behind the pretence of virtue.  “Democratic,” virtue to be precise.  And really, nowadays you pay a few hundred dollars (that could be better spent elsewhere) in order to qualify for a ‘drivers license,’ which are now kindly encased in plastic and have become a efficient replacement for the old-school paper design we saw in various countries under occupation.  Ever wonder why the faintly depressed, pissy bureaucrat down at MotorReg stresses to those recently acquiring their license that they must, “carry their license with them at all times?”

When you think carefully about it, the profound meaning of each phrase is startling.  They mean the same thing, to all intents and purposes.  The first, however, is merely an evolution of the second that better suits democratic society and so the pretence of liberty.  The question is more humane, allowing whom ever is on the receiving end to believe that they have a choice in the matter.  A rose by any other name, perhaps?  Then there’s a case of questioning the officer on why you are being questioned.  Or whether you have to give them the details.  I can tell you, they get irate — in fact, in my own experience I never asked either of these questions (the cop had misheard me).  You do not question their authority.

Now, I might be a little behind the heard in discovering this revelation, but more or less you’re soulless without your papers.  Really think about.  Think about those implications.  Just being alive and in existence isn’t enough.  You may eat, drink, laugh, fall in and out of love and yet without government issued ID, according to the great bureaucratic system of ultimate truth, you’re not really a person unless you’ve been violated at least once by one of its many tentacles — which explains the bizarre policies on immigration regarding the treatment of ‘asylum seekers’ and ‘illegal immigrants’.  Following on from this, in fact, when you’re brought into this world as the spawn of a (hopefully) loving mother and father, you’re given a piece of paper that tells you you’re alive.  Still, when you kick the bucket, your surviving kin are issued with a death certificate — to prove you’re no longer among the living.  It’s bizarre.  Having karked it isn’t enough, you’re going to have to back up with 100 points of ID, at your expense as well as hand over a cut of your final estate for services rendered.

What kind of people have we become in that we think even go so far as to justify this with a ‘yeah-but…’  We lead our lives according to ink on paper and the official authority of some bureaucrat, who, incidentally, are only separated from us by the ink on yet more paper.  Oh, and the sum total of every fire arm and trained enforcer they own or can employ.  It doesn’t matter whether those officials be packing a gun or a pen behind a desk, we have this habit of exhaling, uttering, “you can’t fight city hall,” only to bend over and take it.  We bow to paper and ink so often and most merely view it as proof (excrement) of the behemoth system’s existence.  Yes, the very system we all love to hate but treat it as inevitable as death (and the resulting paperwork).  Many among us even believe that paper and ink are powerful enough to restrain the greed and abuse of power by our respective government?  A single sheet, in fact.  If the American government is any model to go by, paper and ink seem fairly untrustworthy characters.

You and me, we are soulless in the eyes of the law without our papers.  We may exist, but we aren’t alive.  God forbid we forget them and drive down the street to the corner deli without our drivers license.

Oh, and while I have your attention, I thought Australian was supposed to be out of Iraq already?  Am I the only one who noticed this seeming contradiction? Oh right.  Before it was probably  just careful PR political speak for, “not going out of their way to shoot more people.”  Now we’re getting out for real.