Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

2

ziq wrote (edited )

This non-state stuff mostly seems like a way to dupe people into an ethic of isolation, the strongest survives, etc.

Archy already gives us an ethic of isolation. We're more emotionally isolated from each other than we've ever been at any point in human history.

Archy already gives us a world where only the strongest (wealthiest) survive. Where the poor are left to die on the streets or denied basic life-saving care by paramedics. Anarchy is the rejection of conditions that create these power vacuums. If you oppose authority outright, refuse to accept any authority as legitimate, you can remove yourself from culpability for the system that rubber-stamps authority so it can enslave, pollute and murder and destroy entire ecosystems.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Authority enshrines itself as sacred so that anyone that would dare oppose it is in violation of the authority's laws by default. Any opposition to the authority is automatically grounds for arrest, imprisonment or execution. Rulers use authority to shield themselves from responsibility when their enforcers bomb school buses full of children or shoot black people in the face for 'resisting' their authority. Authority does not prevent people from doing harm, it enables them to do more harm on a much wider scale, and prevents them from having to answer for it. Authority is institutional harm with the absence of repercussions.

An individual taking it upon themselves to kill someone who is deliberately destroying an ecosystem and making countless beings sick is not the same as a state building a protected institution that can murder and pollute and not have to answer to any of its victims.

An individual deciding to take direct isolated action to stop a horrific crime against nature does not make them an authority. They have not been enshrined or officiated or certified as an authority. Their use of force is not institutional. It is an isolated action against an oppressive authority to end their violent hierarchy. Destroying a hierarchy doesn't automatically create a new hierarchy or make the person who destroyed it an authority.

1

ziq wrote

Direct action taken by an anarchist against a violent authority does not somehow make the anarchist take the authority's place on the hierarchy. The anarchist doesn't start receiving the authority's paychecks or privilege or license or badge or social status. The anarchist's station in life is unchanged at best, or at worst the anarchist is imprisoned or killed for their action.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

So is the motivation here to create an authoritative definition of Anarchy that excludes Chomsky’s views?

I personally appreciate his thoughtful approach to maximizing human freedom, while balancing the need for protection against human exploitation and tragedy of the commons. Perhaps in implementation he’s not always correct, but I like his underlying model. I personally think he’s an anarchist, because at the root of his model is challenging power structures and tearing them down when they don’t serve the greater good. No hierarchy is sacred.

On another note, while I know this conversation is important to you, don’t let my views upset you. I think Anarchy is strongest with a range of approaches, sometimes conflicting, hopefully always respectful and inclusive where possible.

2

ziq wrote

The definition already existed. "No authority." He decided that wasn't good enough and tacked the word 'unjustified' onto it for no good reason.

I'm not upset, just passionate.

1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

So would you have laws? If so, how would those laws be interpreted and enforced? If not, how do you fairly and without bias prevent exploitation of the weak?

2

ziq wrote

You're falling into that trap again of thinking of anarchy as a social system instead of a perpetual struggle against authority.

2

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Isn’t that what Chomsky suggests?

I’m just trying to figure out what you’re suggesting.

2

PerfectSociety wrote

No, Chomsky suggests that certain forms of authority/hierarchy can be "justified". This is an stark contrast the the core principles of Anarchism.

-1

Zzzxxxyyy wrote

Anarchism as defined by The Anarchism Authority?

2

PerfectSociety wrote

No, Anarchism as defined in the most rational sense in the context of Political Philosophy. You've brought up this point of an "Anarchist Authority" as an attempted reveal of hypocrisy among Anarchists on this topic, multiple times on this thread. Our response has been the same - expertise and authority aren't the same thing. A lack of authority does not indicate a lack of objective criteria for what makes for the most rational definition of a term within some context (in this case, the context of Political Philosophy).

1

ziq wrote

Isn’t that what Chomsky suggests?

No.

I’m just trying to figure out what you’re suggesting.

I've given you hundreds of words describing in simple terms exactly what I'm suggesting and you keep responding with confusion. It's kinda no longer worth my time.