From: cannon@scs.unt.edu (Dustin Cannon (Lab 3460))
Subject: Re: Rebuttal of Brief Comments on ``The Anarchy Paradox''
Organization: School of Community Service, UNT
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:27:09 GMT

>>>>Now at this point, the people of this anarchy have two choices.  They 
can >>>>grab the little bugger and kill him or they can stand by and watch.
>>>
>>>Are  these really the only choices available? How about intervention in the
>>>fight  to  prevent  further  violence? I've seen it happen and have done it
>>>myself.
>>
>>This is a very noble attribute of yours, and I too have seen it done.  
>>However, I have also seen it not done and as long as it is not done once, I 
>>think my point still stands.  People enjoy seeing violence.  That is 
>>evident: professional fights, wrestling, football,television, the gulf war, 
>>etc.  In fact, how many societies can you name that do not have some form of 
>>ritual violence? To insure that in an anarchy ALL fights were broken up, I 
>>would imagine it would require a large amount of socialization.  To do this 
>>you need either a government or a religion (same thing:mind control).
>
>First,  I  apologize  for  not being able to address this in more detail. I
>have little time for net news reading, unfortunately.
>
>My  point  was  that  you  said  that  there  were two choices, killing the
>attacker  or  watching.  This I believe to be fallacious, hence my example.
>Your  point,  unfortunately,  does  not  stand  ``as long as it is not done
>once,''  as you claim. I was objecting to your narrowing of the options for
>action, that's all.
>
>I  agree with your assertion that ``a large amount of socialization'' would
>be  necessary  to ensure that ``fights were broken up.'' Putting aside what
>might  be  objections  to this (i.e., if two people decided to settle their
>dispute  as  to  who  was  the  best  boxer  by having a boxing match), the
>conclusion  that  ``either  a  government  or  a  religion''  is needed for
>``socialization'' is not supported by any evidence.
>
>Certainly, humans have a wide variety of capacities.  My view (and I may be
>wrong, and I offer no evidence) is essentially that expressed by Chomsky in
>his essay, namely,
>
>     that  at  every stage of history our concern must be to dismantle
>     those  forms of authority and oppression that survive from an era
>     when  they  might  have  been  justified in terms of the need for
>     security  or  survival  or  economic  development,  but  that now
>     contribute  to---rather  than  alleviate---material  and cultural
>     deficit.
>
>As  to  a  fight between two people, I would probably try to discourage it,
>but if they really wanted to do it, to let them.

OK, now in your utopian society how would this socialization come about?  
How do you plan on teaching people to behave themseleves?

>
>>>>Now B is the tricky part.  After the seventh or eighth gang revolt is 
>>>>thwarted, I would bet that one of the people would suggest that something 
>>>>needs to be done to stop gangs from forming.  Perhaps an 
>>>>organization.  They could call it The Organization for the Preservation of 
>>>>Anarchy.
>>>
>>>This  I  think  is  misleading,  in that I view anarchism as something best
>>>thought  of  as  a social tendency, rather than a fixed system, by its very
>>>nature.  That is, anarchism (as I see it) recognizes the human potential to
>>>change  (and  change  radically)  and therefore will change itself as human
>>>needs  change.  I  would  doubt  that  an authentic anarchism would seek to
>>>preserve  itself  in  a  certain  form or another, but would seek to answer
>>>questions  such  as  how  to  best represent the interests and needs of the
>>>entire  community,  founded on certain principles such as respect for human
>>>rights,  equality  of  opportunity, freedom, etc.
>>
>>A very nice speech.  Allow me to ask a few questions. How do we convince 
>>everyone that they should work for the 'good' of the community?  Who defines 
>>the needs and interests of the community?  Who defines human rights and why 
>>should we respect them?  What is equality?  What is freedom?
>
>In  order:  ``How  do  we  convince  everyone that they should work for the
>'good' of the community?''
>
>First,  I  take  the  term  ``freedom''  to  be an inherent good, exercised
>inasmuch as it does not inhibit others from exercising it. People should be
>free  to  make  their  own  choices,  including  not  participating  in the
>decision-making  of  a  community.  The  community  itself should decide by
>discussion  and  debate  what  are  relevant,  healthy,  etc. activities to
>undertake.  That  is,  the  community  itself  should  first decide what is
>``good''  then go about trying to implement it itself. There are some basic
>things  that  need  to  be in place, such as free access to information and
>places to meet and so on.

What makes you think they are going to agree on a 'good'?  If it is so easy 
to agree on what is 'good', then why haven't we done it before?  This 
is the point I attempted to make when I first posted this paradox?  Perhaps 
I should not have couched it in a scenario.  Utopian idealists always have 
this naive view of man.  They seem to feel that as soon as you get rid of 
goverment and religion everyone across the world will join hands and 
sing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke, and ....."  This just won't 
happen. Governments don't make Nazi's, Nazi's make goverments.  You are not 
dealing with darker sides of humanity.  Wars are not just waged by 
governments, they are also waged by individuals.  Why do you think the 
individual wars will stop, just because you took everybodys flags away?

>
>The rest:
>
>The community decides these issues, as above.

Hasn't this already happened?  Hasn't the US defined 'freedom' for its 
community?  Isn't what you're talking about the democracy we have now?  BTW, 
what if I decide I don't agree with your communities defintion of relevant, 
healthy, etc. activities?

>
>>> Rudolph Rocker noted that
>>> anarchism is not
>>>     a  fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a definite trend
>>>     in  the  historic development of mankind, which, in contrast with
>>>     the  intellectual  guardianship  of all clerical and governmental
>>>     institutions,  strives  for  the free unhindered unfolding of all
>>>     the  individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a
>>>     relative,  not  an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to
>>>     become broader and to affect wider circles in more manifold ways.
>>>     For  the  anarchist,  freedom  is  not  an abstract philosophical
>>>     concept, but the vital concrete possibility for every human being
>>>     to  bring  to  full  development  all the powers, capacities, and
>>>     talents  with  which  nature  has  endowed  him, and turn them to
>>>     social  account.  The  less  this  natural  development of man is
>>>     influenced  by ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more
>>>     efficient  and harmonious will human personality become, the more
>>>     will  it  become  the  measure of the intellectual culture of the
>>>     society  in  which  it  has  grown.[1]
>>
>>
>>Whatever.  What if nature decides to endow a man with stupidity?  How does 
>>he benefit soicety?  What about the insane?  Where do they fit in.  Perhaps 
>>a man feels that his ability to be an excellent serial killer was endowed to 
>>him by nature and that through his killings he is benefiting society.  Are 
>>we to censure him?  On what basis?
>
>Are  you  saying  ``Whatever''  because  you  don't  understand this or you
>disagree?  It  seems that you don't understand this, because the answers to
>your questions are in the quote. Rocker is pointing out that he feels there
>is   a   need   for  the  ``vital  concrete  possibility  for  every  human
>being''---including  the  ``stupid''---to develop their capacities. He says
>nothing  about  _how_  a  person  might ``benefit society,'' but is talking
>about  development  of  human potential and using it ``to social account.''
>His  prescription  is  independent  of  the  particular  endowment  of  the
>individual.
>
>A  person may be a psychopath and believe he should become a serial killer.
>This  contradicts Rockers prescription, however, in that he desires ``every
>human being'' to be able to exercise his or her freedom.








>>>The  way  I see it, this sort of situation (growth of noxious groups within
>>>an  anarchist  society)  poses no special ``paradox'' for anarchism. Within
>>>any  society,  anarchism  included,  there  are forms of justified coercion
>>>which  are necessary to ensure that certain basic rights remain intact. The
>>>question  to  pose  is  (pertinent  to  any  society): ``Is it justified to
>>>repress  a  group  which  seeks  to  gain  power  over  others?'' This is a
>>>difficult  topic,  no  doubt,  but  my opinion is that one has the right to
>>>resort  to violence to protect oneself, and if a group of Nazis arose which
>>>actively tried to put Jews (for example) into gas ovens, society would have
>>>a  right  to  act collectively (with violence, if necessary) to defend it's
>>>citizens.  How  to  collectively  organize  defense  would  be something to
>>>debate, but I think the central principle is clear.
>>
>>Let me pose this question.  What if the Nazi's actually believed what they 
>>were doing was right?  What if they genuinely felt that what they were doing 
>>was a good act and best for all?  How do we know they are wrong?
>>Before you answer "Murder is always wrong!".  Think about how many animals 
>>in our society are slaughtered each year so we can have a BigMac.  Why isn't 
>>that a holocaust?
>
>I  have  no  doubt that the Nazi's ``actually believed what they were doing
>was  right.''  We  know  they are wrong because we use our innate ideas for
>freedom  to  guide  us.  You  seem  to  want  a  proof based upon something
>approaching physics. Unfortunately I, nor anyone I know of, can offer this.
>I  can  only  say that I base my condemnation on the Nazi atrocities on the
>same  basis  that I condemn child abuse---namely I feel a violent repulsion
>to  seeing  the  suffering  of innocents at the hands of sick people, and I
>feel  that  most healthy people feel this as well. Your point about the use
>of  animals  for  food,  while  perhaps  interesting  in other respects, is
>irrelevant.

Yes I want a proof!  What's wrong with that? "Innate ideas for freedom", 
what does this mean?  Are you saying that deep inside of us we all know 
black and white what is good and bad.  What makes you say this?

What do you mean irrelevant!  You said it yourself: "I feel a violent 
repulsion to seeing the suffering of innocents at the hands of sick 
people."  What did a cow ever do to you?  What makes humans so superior to 
everthing else in the universe, that we have the right to kill anything 
different from us?  Why can't cows have freedom too if its such a cosmic 
natural law.  Why doesn't your innate non-goodness detector go off when you 
see a cow slaugtered?
I also think this is a perfect analogy with holocaust.  We see documentaries 
showing the ovens at Auchwitz while a narrator with an English accent talks 
about "The horror....." then a commercial comes on showing us flame 
broiling dead animal parts in a similar oven and everthings happy, shiny, 
any new.  Jesus, what hipocrisy! 

>>>However,  I think this discussion misses the central point of anarchism and
>>>its potential, though I think it is important and I apologize for not being
>>>able  to  address  it  more satisfactorily. I think the central issue is to
>>>free  ourselves  from  the  bonds  of  ``economic  necessity''  of  renting
>>>ourselves  to  those  who  own  the  country  and  in whose name society is
>>>operated.  Bakunin  put  it  well  when  he said in _Federalism, Socialism,
>>>Anti-Theologism_  that ``In antiquity...slaves were, in all honesty, called
>>>slaves.  In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs; nowadays they are
>>>called  wage  earners.'' To free ourselves from this slavery, and to put in
>>>place other institutions based on community interests, rather than those of
>>>the powerful few, is the central task.
>>
>>Once again, who are you to decide that the rich shouldn't be rich and that 
>>your community can do it better?
>
>I unfortunately can't decode this one.

Simple, are not the rich simply people achieving thier maximum potential?  
They are good at their business and rewarded justly.  Why do you have the 
right to come along and tell them thier not doing it right?  Why aren't the 
rich 'free' in your society?
_________________________________________________________________
Dustin Cannon       "For the first time I laid my heart open 
University of        to the benign indifference of the universe."
North Texas                           -Albert Camus
Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy