A Rebuke of Antistatism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A Rebuke of Antistatism » A Rebuke of Antistatism

A Rebuke of Antistatism
Anarchism is fallacious and morally myopic.

Page: 1 2 3 4

A Rebuke of Antistatism

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 130

Posted 09/18/09 - 07:50 PM: Subject: A Rebuke of Antistatism	#1
I haven't been here in a while (since early 2007!). During my time away most of my thought has been political, the applied philosophy. During that time I've studied economics especially, and have flirted many times with anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism before fairly recently discovering that I am a social democrat. Below is a very quick synopsis of a few reasons I reject typical anarcho-fill-in-the-blank arguments against the welfare state. 1: Capitalism cannot work without the state. People who argue that self interest alone will create a "spontaneous order" and a prosperous market are committing the fallacy of composition in thinking that individual interests will correlate with societal interests (left-libertarians commit the same fallacy only with collectivism). In my study I have found that a stable, growing economy requires significant intervention and regulation, from central banks to law enforcement to federal deposit insurance. Far from being a golden age, early capitalism was in recession almost as much as it was in growth, bank runs were common place, and abuse was rampant. It was an economic "race to the bottom," resulting from what are called "collective action problems". Consider as illustration an office building on fire. Individually it is in my self interest to run towards the exit as fast as possible, but when everyone does it the result is a jammed exit. It is in the interest of everyone to leave single file, but if there is nothing to prevent line jumping this will never occur naturally. Society has social norms for many collective action problems; the rest require a state (defined as any institution with a monopoly on force). 2: The Non-Aggression principle, though superficially profound, is profoundly superficial. With anarcho-capitalists they usually take a very narrow meaning of "coercion" and "freedom". Taxes are coercive, even if you don't mind paying, because if you ever decided to resist you could go to jail. Markets are no less coercive, though in more subtle ways. It is not as if everyone wants to be a garbage collector, but resisting market allocation will usually result in starvation. A happy medium can be reached with the introduction of social safety nets. 3: The Non-Aggression principle is based on the maxim and moral intuition of "doing no harm to other" (with some exceptions like self-defense). Though powerful if universally applied -- no more taxes, no more wars of choice, etc. -- there is no reason given for why it is the only moral intuition universalized. Humans are evolved mammals and our morals are not internally consistent (applying perfectly consistent rules to our actions is thus repressive). Though we intuit that doing harm is bad, we also intuit that it is alright for a greater end, particularly if the harm inflicted isn't significant. Communists commit the same fallacy with intuitions about equality. Neo-cons make primarily moral arguments for war - "how can we let 20 million Iraqis continue to be brutally oppressed?" - and similar intuitions exist in terms of development assistance and aid: is it not a maxim that we should "help those in need," even if it involves non-voluntary donation? In short: Non-Aggression is morally myopic. All political systems contain coercion of some kind. Forceful laws are in the self interest of all of society. Once you accept the existence of a state to create and maintain a market you have accepted your first "social program," and from that follows many efficiency gains and welfare initiatives. There are many more arguments, revolving more around equality, the democratic impulse, liability and things like environmental protection, etc. I want, though, to just put out a few ideas that tackle anarchism's foundations. I'm willing to elaborate and debate on anyone of these. Just no gold standard talk -- please.
theham88@gmail.com

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 23, 2007
Location: America

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 289

Posted 09/18/09 - 07:55 PM:	#2
I have not the time to read this right now, but I will reply when I find the time.
"A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

Aetixintro
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008
Location: Near Oslo, Norway

Total Topics: 56
Total Posts: 696

Posted 09/19/09 - 02:30 AM:	#3
Hamandcheese, I consider myself a welfare-capitalist, conservative. Nice writing by closely positioned (in the political spectrum) person. I have strong sympathies with the labour-movement. I'll hold off a bit and see what others contribute. Philosophy of Politics is not my strongest field. I've hardly read anything. Mostly I have it from general political discussions, the general media and so. Edited by Aetixintro on 09/19/09 - 03:24 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

realistcat
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 132

Posted 09/19/09 - 02:42 PM:	#4
States are hierarchical, top-down structures that preside over the society. You have the various chain of command hierarchiers in government departments, military and so on. There is a division of labor in which workers are subordinate to high end professionals and managers...similar to the structure in corporations. The state exists to defend the interests of dominating and exploiting classes. That's why they are separate from effective popular control. But corporate capitalism is a system of oppression. Workers are forced to work for bosses, management makes the decisions about hiring, firing, work organization, what is produced, technologies used, whether workers will be exposed to dangerous chemicals. Persistent Taylorist practices of work re-organization concentrates decision-making authority and expertise into a relative few. This means that the skills of the working class are systematically under-developed. Being subordinate to this kind of regime is itself a form of oppression. But the state is a kind of political governance system designed to defend some form of class domination. This is why worker liberation would require not only seizure of the means of production, collective self-management of work, but also replacing the state with a more authentically democratic form of governance system. The state is not the only possible form of governance system. There could be a goverance system consisting of delegate congresses rooted in assemblies in the workplaces and neighborhoods, and with a democratic popular militia replacing the hierarchical standing army. What I've described is basically the dominant libertarian socialist or left-libertarian view. The word "libertarian" was originally coined in the 19th century by anti-capitalist libertarian socialists. Hence "libertarian left."

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 130

Posted 09/19/09 - 07:51 PM:	#5
While in general I strongly disagree with the Marxist theory of exploitation and strongly support a basically free capitalism, I think we are thinking along the same lines. I stated in my OP that all systems are inevitably 'coercive' in some sense, and we must therefore chose a system that mediates coercion. Left Libertarianism (like anarcho-syndicalism, for instance) still commits the same fallacies of composition that right wing libertarianism does, though I appreciate your elucidating on who owned the term first. If you are wondering, I identify with libertarian paternalism, like a social democracy somewhere between Sweden and Canada -- basically free-market economics with significant distributive justice and social engineering (nothing scary: think tabaco taxes). Nevertheless, you haven't added or subtracted from my main points against anti-statism. If it is more interesting for you we could discuss the intrinsically democratic nature of an egalitarian capitalist economy which I believe solved the main criticisms by the Chomskyan left.
theham88@gmail.com

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 320

Posted 09/19/09 - 10:14 PM:	#6
Hamandcheese wrote: While in general I strongly disagree with the Marxist theory of exploitation and strongly support a basically free capitalism, I think we are thinking along the same lines. I stated in my OP that all systems are inevitably 'coercive' in some sense, and we must therefore chose a system that mediates coercion. Left Libertarianism (like anarcho-syndicalism, for instance) still commits the same fallacies of composition that right wing libertarianism does, though I appreciate your elucidating on who owned the term first. If you are wondering, I identify with libertarian paternalism, like a social democracy somewhere between Sweden and Canada -- basically free-market economics with significant distributive justice and social engineering (nothing scary: think tabaco taxes). Nevertheless, you haven't added or subtracted from my main points against anti-statism. If it is more interesting for you we could discuss the intrinsically democratic nature of an egalitarian capitalist economy which I believe solved the main criticisms by the Chomskyan left. I agree. That which preserves the domain of the private individual originates from public, state-sourced measures such as laws which define a system of rights and duties as well other regulative measures which balance public concerns against private ones. I think a reasonable, rough guideline would be that the extent of statist measures should be commensurate to the degree of complexity and size of a society.
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 130

Posted 09/20/09 - 07:38 AM:	#7
Mako wrote: I think a reasonable, rough guideline would be that the extent of statist measures should be commensurate to the degree of complexity and size of a society. That's an interesting idea, but I have a question. One thing that governments are good at is being a fill in the blank of last resort. It is impossible to organize a private or voluntary annuities scheme without it going bankrupt so governments become the "insurer of last resort" and mandate everyone under a certain plan: social security or pensions. This is essentially a risk pooling arrangement that everyone is made to enter. The size of the statist measurement is thus equal to the size of society. But in early tribal societies they had identical risk pooling arrangements with food supply, enforced by shaman and threat of execution or exile. These 'Shamanic' measures were also equal to the size of society. My question is this: how could any statist measure not be proportionate to its constituency.
theham88@gmail.com

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3767

Posted 09/20/09 - 08:14 AM:	#8
Regarding the non-aggression principle, I think there might be an ambiguety with regards to what constitutes initiation of force, and that you might have ignored alternative interpretations of the non-aggression principle that stand against the cricism you've put forth. For instance collecting tax can be considered a non intiative force, if it is done in response to injustice. Wars can be fought pre-emptively however not just becase of a whim, even war of consequest can be fought with the justification that if one don't conquer the land, whoever else gets it or currently occupies it might get too powerful in the future, however since wars are very expensive, one would have to carefully weigh such risks against the expenses.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 320

Posted 09/20/09 - 09:26 AM:	#9
Hamandcheese wrote: That's an interesting idea, but I have a question. My question is this: how could any statist measure not be proportionate to its constituency. Good question. Actually I was not careful enough with my wording, as I my intention was toward something along more general lines. I suppose I was thinking in terms of two parameters. Firstly, the actual size of government in terms of the ratio of gov't spending vs. GDP. But I was also thinking of the moral relationship between state authority and its constituents; more specifically, the extent to which that relationship is either one of symmetry/reciprocity or one of dominance, and to what extent state-authority can make claims against its citizens (and vice versa). In other words, are the state's (potential) claims against private citizens restricted in a way that they are balanced-out by the claims that private citizens/organizations can make against the state? That of course implies a robust system of individual rights. I approach those issues from a leftist perspective. So I don't necessarily view government programs as intrusive or representative of state over-extension. I tend to view government assistance/welfare programs as (provisionally) rightful claims that citizens can make against government, leaving aside for the moment the question as to how justified those programs are. A proper and just delineation between state and citizen would entail that government not only preserves individual rights as 'negative freedom' but also that government carries a reasonable obligation to facilitate 'postiive freedom.' In a nutshell, my conception of a just state is that it should serve as a proxy for, and a formal analogue of, the collective and rightful capacities/strategies of its citizens. Such a view as well, imo, implies some notion of 'restorative justice.' So my concern is the extent to which the relationship between state and citizen is a moral (i.e. just) one, that is, one which is characterized by symmetry/reciprocity rather than an asymmetrical one based on power and dominance. Thus my reference to 'commensurate' statism in my first post. Hence the concept of a 'night-watchman' state is quite insufficient in my view (and I gather you agree in your own fashion). I certainly don't believe our aspirations toward civilization-via-the-nation-state should be to merely reproduce (in socially/technologically complex, statist form) some of the amoral characteristics of the 'law-of-the-jungle' (survival-of-the-fittest)? We can do and must do (and have done) much better than that. Mako Edited by Mako on 09/20/09 - 10:56 AM
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

realistcat
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2009

Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 132

Posted 09/20/09 - 10:05 AM:	#10
"Left Libertarianism (like anarcho-syndicalism, for instance) still commits the same fallacies of composition" what is this alleged "fallacy of composition"? Paternalism is an ideology or stance that presupposes the legitimacy of a dominating and exploiting class. When I talk about exploitation, I'm not assuming Marx's theory of this. The ordinary notion of exploitation is taking advantage of someone who is in a weaker, more vulnerable position. I would analyse exploitation in terms of benefits and costs derived from social relations of domination in social production. A exploits B if A receives unearned income or benefits from the work of B and/or pushes from A onto B costs of production that are not warranted, due to a relation of domination of A over B. Capitalist income is itself unwarranted. Domination and exploitation are prima facie forms of injustice and thus illegitimate. Edited by realistcat on 09/20/09 - 10:12 AM

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.