A challenge for non-anarchists

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

I don’t think it’s unusual at all. It’s probably quite common. I just believe it’s wrong to rely so heavily on the expectation of outcomes. So please, go on.

How heavily do you think I’m suggesting, and why do you think it’s wrong?

The bottom line is, if you want to say that a principle of the right to autonomy is the single, overriding moral value, then it doesn’t matter what else we agree on, we will disagree fundamentally. If this is the real source of disagreement, then I personally think it’s worth hashing out the differences in underlying moral models, to see if we can find common ground. If we can’t, then there’s no point in debating the rest.

FWIW, I think I can at least test the extreme divergent view by asking this simple question:

If hypothetically a single case of manifestation of a right that you consider fundamental and inalienable would almost certainly lead to the long and tortuous death of every human on the planet, would it be justified to take action to manifest that right?

@MadLad

Yeah, that’s it. Everyone has freedom so long as they do not interfere with the equal freedom others. Very basic stuff. For anarchism that implies “voluntary association” because there is no one forcing you to organize.

One cannot choose to be a slave under the principle of voluntary association because a slave cannot choose who he associates with. There are no legally binding agreements because there is no government or state authority to enforce them. You’re allowed to change your mind whenever you want. Pretty basic stuff.

Okay, so I’m going to suggest an intentionally absurd version of a problem with implementing this, as you are suggesting it, in order to see if there isn’t more to it than what you’re saying.

If you, I and some others withdrew from society as we currently know it, and somehow even managed to find some land that no one wanted to kick us off of, how do we distribute resources? If I agree to whatever means to distribute resources, and then later I change my mind, am I free to take the resources that were yours under the previous agreement, seeing as though I changed my mind and the agreement is void?

If not, then there must be some other foundational rules or values at play, right?

@MadLad

I’m with you. I’m both American and Canadian. In his oath of office the Prime Minister declared fealty to King Charles and his heirs, so whenever he balks about sovereignty I have to laugh because his sovereign exists over there on the other side of the pond.

While I’m in principle an anti-monarchist, it’s well down on my list of concerns.

@MadLad

Personally, I think representation is impossible, that a politician or bureaucrat could only ever represent himself and his party. After all, how can one represent someone he’s never met and doesn’t even know exists, like most of his constituents?

Well, like the governments that have eradicated starvation did. It seems like you’re objection has to do with the fact that it isn’t simple or linear, which is true. I just think all of the simple and linear alternatives fail in comparison.

To say “representation is impossible” is only meaningful if it’s a binary state. It’s a continuum. We can know something about what people want (no starvation), and we can enact policies that lead to outcomes that match that preference (the countries that eradicated starvation). I doubt we can ever know everything about people’s preferences, nor probably can we address all of them, but we can to some degree, and some is better than none. More is better than less. As far as I can see, Anarchism just addresses one preference (for agency/autonomy), and I’m not even convinced it does it well.

[MadLad]

@Dobbler

How heavily do you think I’m suggesting, and why do you think it’s wrong?

The bottom line is, if you want to say that a principle of the right to autonomy is the single, overriding moral value, then it doesn’t matter what else we agree on, we will disagree fundamentally. If this is the real source of disagreement, then I personally think it’s worth hashing out the differences in underlying moral models, to see if we can find common ground. If we can’t, then there’s no point in debating the rest.

FWIW, I think I can at least test the extreme divergent view by asking this simple question:

If hypothetically a single case of manifestation of a right that you consider fundamental and inalienable would almost certainly lead to the long and tortuous death of every human on the planet, would it be justified to take action to manifest that right

I think reliance on expected outcomes is wrong because humans cannot predict the future. When applied to our own acts, in simple and controlled environments, it’s probably fine. But when applied to politics it’s not fine. There are too many unknowns.

We do disagree fundamentally. I’m not a consequentialist and vehemently oppose utilitarianism. But there are plenty reasons to debate the rest.

As for your hypothetical, I think it would be justified to violate someone’s rights should he be violating the rights of another. If he is threatening the lives of others it would be prudent to violate some of his rights, restrain him from carrying out his threats, at least until proven otherwise.

Would you risk violating people’s rights, perhaps killing them, if you believed it would lead to one of your preferred expected outcomes, like maybe the happiness of a majority of people?

@Dobbler

Okay, so I’m going to suggest an intentionally absurd version of a problem with implementing this, as you are suggesting it, in order to see if there isn’t more to it than what you’re saying.

If you, I and some others withdrew from society as we currently know it, and somehow even managed to find some land that no one wanted to kick us off of, how do we distribute resources? If I agree to whatever means to distribute resources, and then later I change my mind, am I free to take the resources that were yours under the previous agreement, seeing as though I changed my mind and the agreement is void?

If not, then there must be some other foundational rules or values at play, right?

We wouldn’t distribute because there is no system of distribution. We would share, borrow, trade, or gift, without the oversight of a third party to intervene or otherwise steal a portion of our property.

You would not be free to steal my resources under any circumstances. But if you renege on a deal, agreement, or promise, then I have learned that you cannot be trusted, cut my losses, and don’t deal with you anymore. Whether that is your loss, or mine, who knows?

@Dobbler

Well, like the governments that have eradicated starvation did. It seems like your objection has to do with the fact that it isn’t simple or linear, which is true. I just think all of the simple and linear alternatives fail in comparison.

To say “representation is impossible” is only meaningful if it’s a binary state. It’s a continuum. We can know something about what people want (no starvation), and we can enact policies that lead to outcomes that match that preference (the countries that eradicated starvation). I doubt we can ever know everything about people’s preferences, nor probably can we address all of them, but we can to some degree, and some is better than none. More is better than less. As far as I can see, Anarchism just addresses one preference (for agency/autonomy), and I’m not even convinced it does it well.

It is a binary state, for me. Representing someone else is performative. A representation is a likeness or image. It’s pretending, acting, or theater. There is no continuum here as there are no degrees of pretend. So statism has to contend with itself insofar as it is an oligarchic system of exploitation premised on a series of fables and play-acting. I hope I never find myself in support of it.

[Dobbler]

@MadLad

We do disagree fundamentally. I’m not a consequentialist and vehemently oppose utilitarianism. But there are plenty reasons to debate the rest.

Maybe you can make that case for me. I’m not convinced.

@MadLad

Would you risk violating people’s rights, perhaps killing them, if you believed it would lead to one of your preferred expected outcomes, like maybe the happiness of a majority of people?

Re. killing them, in theory yes, but in practice mainly no. I mean, like with starving, we know without having to do deep studies that people don’t like to be killed. And not just a little, they REALLY don’t like to be killed. Having said that, there’ a carve out that I think we’d both agree to, for allowing for consensual euthanasia… although the devil is in the details.

I don’t think we think about the word “rights” the same way, so we’d be talking past each other to get much deeper into this answer. I asked you previously (and you didn’t respond) something along the line of, what does it mean for someone to have a right to something that they cannot expect to attain? To intentionally be absurd, if we both stipulated that I had a right to 100 trillion dollars, what does that translate to? What does having that right mean?

@MadLad

We wouldn’t distribute because there is no system of distribution. We would share, borrow, trade, or gift, without the oversight of a third party to intervene or otherwise steal a portion of our property.

But how do you determine what belongs to whom? Property is a durable collective agreement. Durable in that you can’t just change your mind about or it’s a pointless concept.

@MadLad

It is a binary state, for me.

But we’re not describing your idea here, we’re talking about mine. Sorry to be blunt, but in this specific context, what you think doesn’t matter. I have specified real world examples that, I think, are easily understandable and are clearly interpretable as a continuum.

@MadLad

I hope I never find myself in support of it.

That has a dogmatic ring to it.