The self-defeating nature of anarchism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The self-defeating nature of anarchism » The self-defeating nature of anarchism

The self-defeating nature of anarchism
Opposition to all coercion is equivalent to consent to all coercion.

The self-defeating nature of anarchism

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 04/30/08 - 10:12 AM: Subject: The self-defeating nature of anarchism	#1
In another thread, I mentioned that I believe that anarchy can be quickly and neatly refuted. The following is my refutation: If you believe that all coercion is unacceptable, and therefore that government is unacceptable, then there will be anarchy. However, in a state of anarchy some individuals are bound to attempt to coerce others, and if you intervene in one instance, the question arises, why don't you intervene in all instances of a certain class? But then you would have government, and so in order to maintain anarchy you must allow coercion. But then you are not opposed to coercion, since you do not attempt to stop it; so why are you opposed to government in the first place?
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 04/30/08 - 02:21 PM:	#2
There can be no law against coercion or government in an anarchy. I oppose them both, but not coercively; I simply deny their legitimacy and authority. Unfortunately, just because I believe that anarchy is the best way to live, that does not make it the way the world does live. I am against gun crime, but I don't impose it at gunpoint.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

quickly
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 70

Posted 04/30/08 - 02:36 PM:	#3
If you believe that all coercion is unacceptable, and therefore that government is unacceptable, then there will be anarchy. However, in a state of anarchy some individuals are bound to attempt to coerce others, and if you intervene in one instance, the question arises, why don't you intervene in all instances of a certain class? But then you would have government, and so in order to maintain anarchy you must allow coercion. But then you are not opposed to coercion, since you do not attempt to stop it; so why are you opposed to government in the first place? You'd be opposed to the institutionalization of coercion? Is coercion defined physically, or are you differentiating between force and power? Does government arise specifically once, as you said, a set of actions is always responded to, axiomatically, with a certain coercive practice? Or is this merely the state of anarchic coercion espoused earlier? Is government a contract or promise between peoples which is annulled by the cessation of the belief or agreement in/of this contract? Anarchy isn't a state of non-coercion; it is a state of the nonexistence of a State's coercion.
_____________________ "Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 05/02/08 - 12:17 PM:	#4
unenlightened wrote: There can be no law against coercion or government in an anarchy. I oppose them both, but not coercively; I simply deny their legitimacy and authority. Unfortunately, just because I believe that anarchy is the best way to live, that does not make it the way the world does live. I am against gun crime, but I don't impose it at gunpoint. So, if you had the opportunity to forcibly stop a gun crime, you wouldn't? quickly wrote: You'd be opposed to the institutionalization of coercion? Is coercion defined physically, or are you differentiating between force and power? Does government arise specifically once, as you said, a set of actions is always responded to, axiomatically, with a certain coercive practice? Or is this merely the state of anarchic coercion espoused earlier? Is government a contract or promise between peoples which is annulled by the cessation of the belief or agreement in/of this contract? Anarchy isn't a state of non-coercion; it is a state of the nonexistence of a State's coercion. You put it nicely: "government" is the idea that a set of actions will always be responded to with a certain coercive practice. So if you oppose all forms of government, then you do not believe that any particular set of actions should always be responded to with coercion; you don't believe that murder should always be prevented, or that rape should always be prevented, etc. Therein lies the contradiction, because most anarchists would, if given the chance, coercively prevent all murder, all rape.
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 05/02/08 - 03:24 PM:	#5
Thoughtless wrote: So, if you had the opportunity to forcibly stop a gun crime, you wouldn't? Force is not the same as coercion. It has not happened, and I would not own a gun, but if I can save a life with judicious force, I will. Have I defeated myself? I think I can intervene without becoming a government; I think I can act according to principle without making a law - but don't let me tell you how to think.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/02/08 - 03:26 PM:	#6
You put it nicely: "government" is the idea that a set of actions will always be responded to with a certain coercive practice. So if you oppose all forms of government, then you do not believe that any particular set of actions should always be responded to with coercion; you don't believe that murder should always be prevented, or that rape should always be prevented, etc. Therein lies the contradiction, because most anarchists would, if given the chance, coercively prevent all murder, all rape. I think, that should you wish to adequately critique Anarchism, you should know enough about it in theory first. I don't know of any Political Philosophical position that states that Government is "the idea that a certain set of actions will always be responded to with coercion." Anarchists certainly do not hold this position. Thus, your critique is flawed from the start. You're not actually arguing against anything that Anarchists really believe.

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 05/02/08 - 03:46 PM:	#7
unenlightened wrote: Force is not the same as coercion. What's the difference? HalyconGlaze wrote: I think, that should you wish to adequately critique Anarchism, you should know enough about it in theory first. I don't know of any Political Philosophical position that states that Government is "the idea that a certain set of actions will always be responded to with coercion." Anarchists certainly do not hold this position. Thus, your critique is flawed from the start. You're not actually arguing against anything that Anarchists really believe. Thank you for that thoroughly worhtless post. Why don't you propose an alternative definition of "government"? I think that the above sums it up pretty nicely.
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/02/08 - 04:13 PM:	#8
Haha, that sounds like something I'd say, except when I'd say it, I'd be right and not wrong. I wouldn't be acting all high-and-mighty with crappy ideas. Your definition is similar to what we usually call "law" but not exact because as has been said, Coercion is not the same as force. In fact, your definition of government is quite laughable in that it's so ridiculously close to "law" as to be almost the same, which means you seem to have confused to two, and confusing the two is ludicrous. As to an alternate definition, there are many different definitions of a State, depending on what Political Philosophy you take it from. Even among Anarchists, depending on the Anarchist Theory you hold to, definitions are different. What is usually held however, is the rejection of Compulsory Governance. The fact that it's Compulsory is seen to be Coercive. It's more of the fact that what Anarchists call "Government" is not universally agreed to be a ruling body by everybody being ruled, and thus is coercive. Personally, I'd say that Government is simply a "coercive Monopoly of services that operate through force and theft."

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 05/02/08 - 06:23 PM:	#9
HalcyonGlaze wrote: Haha, that sounds like something I'd say, except when I'd say it, I'd be right and not wrong. I wouldn't be acting all high-and-mighty with crappy ideas. Your definition is similar to what we usually call "law" but not exact because as has been said, Coercion is not the same as force. In fact, your definition of government is quite laughable in that it's so ridiculously close to "law" as to be almost the same, which means you seem to have confused to two, and confusing the two is ludicrous. As to an alternate definition, there are many different definitions of a State, depending on what Political Philosophy you take it from. Even among Anarchists, depending on the Anarchist Theory you hold to, definitions are different. What is usually held however, is the rejection of Compulsory Governance. The fact that it's Compulsory is seen to be Coercive. It's more of the fact that what Anarchists call "Government" is not universally agreed to be a ruling body by everybody being ruled, and thus is coercive. Personally, I'd say that Government is simply a "coercive Monopoly of services that operate through force and theft." Too much allusion to the theories of others and not enough thought. I didn't post the thread to be referred to anarchist theory, I posted it as a challenge to anarchists and expected a reasoned response from anarchists. As far as your definition of government as a "coercive monopoly of services that operates through force and theft", my question is: assuming a minimal government whose only function is to prevent coercion, how can one both be opposed to such a government and opposed to coercion? If you are opposed to coercion, then you should intervene if someone is being coerced; but a libertarian-type government would exist solely to intervene in such cases; so how can you be opposed to such a government? Edited by Thoughtless on 05/02/08 - 06:28 PM
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

quickly
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/02/08 - 06:47 PM:	#10
Thoughtless: I thought I put it nicely; but my nicely seems to be your wanton affection (for yourself).
_____________________ "Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/02/08 - 10:17 PM:	#11
I am an Anarchist. Sorry though, if I think of other people's thoughts on the subject other than my own. As far as your definition of government as a "coercive monopoly of services that operates through force and theft", my question is: assuming a minimal government whose only function is to prevent coercion, how can one both be opposed to such a government and opposed to coercion? Because such a government is coercive. The fact that it's "government" under that definition requires it to be ceorcive. If you are opposed to coercion, then you should intervene if someone is being coerced Illogical conclusion. It does not follow that my opposition to coercion should somehow require me to intervene against coercion. but a libertarian-type government would exist solely to intervene in such cases; so how can you be opposed to such a government? By being so libertarian as to aknowledge that a "libetarian-type government" is still ceorcive.

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 05/05/08 - 09:47 AM:	#12
HalyconGlaze wrote: Illogical conclusion. It does not follow that my opposition to coercion should somehow require me to intervene against coercion. Sure, but then you have to admit that you don't act on your convictions.
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 05/05/08 - 10:50 AM:	#13
Thoughtless wrote: Sure, but then you have to admit that you don't act on your convictions. Nonsense! If I am opposed to coercion, my action is not to coerce. This is in accord with my convictions. What the other fellow does, who has other convictions, is a matter for him. As has been pointed out, this is a 'libertarian' position.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Thoughtless
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2005
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 636

Posted 05/05/08 - 11:14 AM:	#14
unenlightened wrote: Thoughtless wrote: Sure, but then you have to admit that you don't act on your convictions. Nonsense! If I am opposed to coercion, my action is not to coerce. This is in accord with my convictions. What the other fellow does, who has other convictions, is a matter for him. As has been pointed out, this is a 'libertarian' position. Then you can't possibly oppose government, so what does it mean to say that you're an "anarchist"?
_____________________ You down with OPP(Original Poster's Prerogative)?

quickly
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 29, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 70

Posted 05/06/08 - 06:27 AM:	#15
Thoughtless wrote: Nonsense! If I am opposed to coercion, my action is not to coerce. This is in accord with my convictions. What the other fellow does, who has other convictions, is a matter for him. As has been pointed out, this is a 'libertarian' position. Then you can't possibly oppose government, so what does it mean to say that you're an "anarchist"? Do you understand the distinction between force, power, violence, authority, etc.? You're uniformly construing opposition as violent opposition. Thus, the statement "you can't possibly oppose government [if you are opposed to coercion]" is confused because the notions of opposition and coercion are being equated through a pure construal of coercion and opposition as violence. When in actuality oppositionor coercion can occur in ways which don't infringe upon the individual physically as the exercise of, for example, power through authority.
_____________________ "Monsters cannot be announced. One cannot say: 'here are our monsters', without immediately turning the monsters into pets." -Jacques Derrida

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 454

Posted 05/06/08 - 04:41 PM:	#16
Thoughtless wrote: In another thread, I mentioned that I believe that anarchy can be quickly and neatly refuted. The following is my refutation: If you believe that all coercion is unacceptable, and therefore that government is unacceptable, then there will be anarchy. However, in a state of anarchy some individuals are bound to attempt to coerce others, and if you intervene in one instance, the question arises, why don't you intervene in all instances of a certain class? But then you would have government, and so in order to maintain anarchy you must allow coercion. But then you are not opposed to coercion, since you do not attempt to stop it; so why are you opposed to government in the first place? There is a rather large gap between "intervening in all instances of a certain class" and Government. Otherwise batman would have been a politician.

HalcyonGlaze
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 30, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 44

Posted 05/06/08 - 05:03 PM:	#17
Sure, but then you have to admit that you don't act on your convictions. That doesn't make any sense for many reasons. I'll just go through one. If for instance, I "had convictions" and one of my convictions was that "I don't HAVE to act on my convictions" then obviously I do not have to admit I do not act on my convictions, for I am acting within them by virtue of one of my convictions. A second reason is what unenlightened said. It is not actually against Libertarian convictions to not go around, torch blazing, trying to stop all coercion.

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:18 AM:	#18
Thoughtless wrote: unenlightened wrote: Nonsense! If I am opposed to coercion, my action is not to coerce. This is in accord with my convictions. What the other fellow does, who has other convictions, is a matter for him. As has been pointed out, this is a 'libertarian' position. Then you can't possibly oppose government, so what does it mean to say that you're an "anarchist"? I oppose your argument; I deny your authority to tell me what I cannot possibly do; I tell you that you are in the wrong; but I do not coerce you to agree with me or act in the same way. This is what it means (to me) to be an anarchist. I don't think it means anything much to you. If you think that it is impossible to hold an opinion without trying to impose it on the rest of the world, then I pity you (and the world).
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

EthanLeeVita
Philosopher and Writer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2007
Location: Washington, United States
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/09/08 - 02:21 PM:	#19
The difference is that in anarchy one may use coercion in reaction against coercive actions while government uses coercion to prohibit non-coercive actions.
_____________________ Ethan Lee Vita, Philosopher and Writer http://ethanleevita.blogspot.com http://feeds.feedburner.com/EthanLeeVita

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 05/12/08 - 04:17 AM:	#20
We must first ready with the thought that the way "anarchism" is used tends towards corruption of its original meaning(s). also, the way it is used today differs from person to person; there are also many varieties of "anarchism" - some leaning to the left, some actually leaning to the right. Outside this, the staple of "anarchy" is "non-governmental interference in people's lives" it is also about a community based on "consent" and "non-coercive behaviour" - cooperation between Individuals. Today we have the idea of power, of Government, of rulers etc., so if the government were to blow up tomorrow, there would be people necessarily taking power. So what does this mean? Its a frame of mind, an Ideology of UIndividual morality, Individual responsibility, and Individual government- self-rule. A little walk down the pages of history will illustrate the Papacy, the Kings, and other atavistic governments telling people how to live, coercing people to prayer, or to war. We might say that the growth of the former to the limitation of the latter is a positive thing, and could bring around such an "attitude" of Anarchism.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.