Philosophical Anarchism: A Natural Law

a reply to: filosophia

Nice write up and good polemic.

It is a fact that social hierarchy is a known phenomena found in all sorts of species. It is a fact that states are governed by governments. No one thinks a law is some invisible shackle around his ankle, or that laws are written by anything other than human beings. Laws are laws, not illusions. They are not magic tricks performed by some magician. They can be changed and manipulated like everything else in the world and we can consider them or not just like everything else in the world.

The idea of "law" used to describe societal rules and government regulation predates the use of the term law used to describe natural occurrences by millenia. In fact, the use of the term "law of nature" to describe natural phenomena wasn't utilized probably until Descartes in the 16th - 17th century, which was sort of fitting term for the theologians of modern science and philosophy, who believed the universe was a machine built by an all powerful legislator and judge. You would rather call these "laws"?

I think your argument rests on the assumption that if laws exist, and they were not illusions, they would be immutable or natural forces that divinely or magically push us to behave one way or another. Then who legislates these laws? However, the opposite is the case. Man writes and legislates and follows laws—always has—people participate in a society or community by following them or not.

According to the law what Hitler and the Nazi's did wasn't legal. The Nuremberg trials prove this.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is one of the great misunderstandings of academia, the idea that any ology is a science and has immutable 'laws'.

Nothing of economics is predictive. Therefore it is not a science regardless of how useful or informative it may be retrospectively (economic history).

Sociology is similarly not a science and social engineering is the practical application of that arbitrary (though ideally synthesized) perspective. To me, the greater discussion here regards socialism which purports to be able to sufficiently allocate resources within a society en masse. It cannot succeed and the suffering which it's attempts cause is manifest in the great wars of the 20th century which were all against socialist totalitarianisms.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Ah but you see, what Hitler did was legal under HIS law, just not legal under ANOTHER'S law. Your argument is based on the fact that if more people agree on something, it is more of a law than a minority law. I don't think anyone will argue that genocide is bad, and therefore against the law, but let's not kid ourselves, the world wars killed over 70 million people, and as they say, "the victors write the history" and the victors say what is moral or not. America killed over 200,000 people with two atomic bombs, is this somehow justified because Japan was their enemy? The fact that two governments can argue about what is the law is further proof that the law is just make believe.

I agree that the Law is not some type of natural, indestructible power, my only intention is to point this out to others who may think it is. Whenever the law is being discussed, it becomes quite clear that it is mutable, fallible, and subject to individual's whims, this makes it all the more clear that we should not put any faith or trust in it. Usually, though, the law is not the subject of the discourse. When a criminal is in court and stands before a judge, the real argument is, did he or did he not commit a crime? The argument is not, "Is the Law even relevant at all?" Most likely a judge would throw such an argument out of court. Or maybe not, this just proves the "Law" rests on the whims of one judge.

You are saying, "according to the law, what Hitler did was illegal, because the Nuremberg trials prove this." Well, now I must point out that you seem to regard this law as irrefutable. Just like all other laws, it is an agreed upon notion. Where were the nuremberg trials during the Communist murder sprees? Where is the nuremberg trials during the war in Iraq? Or Vietnam? The fact America commits so many "war crimes" but not really because America controls the UN, is just further proof that the Law is expendable, to be used when it is convenient, and hushed up at any other time. I'm sure the Palestinians would argue that Israel is committing war crimes, and to be fair, Israel would probably accuse the Palestinians right back of the same thing. Where is the Nuremberg trials on this one? The Nuremberg trial was one trial that was basically created just to prosecute the Nazis. I hardly consider that to be a time tested Law. Like all other laws, it is just a show. In this regard, I would argue that Law IS a magic trick, performed by magicians that call themselves law makers.

It's been said that a Magician is an Actor playing the role of a Magician. I would use this analogy to say that a Politician is an actor playing the role of a Moral Defender of Human Rights.

a reply to: filosophia

Well said, I have thought about this quite often.

Murder exists, despite there being laws against murder. Therefore, government law is just an illusion. You can say that laws against murder prevent MORE murder from occurring, but since murder occurs, that just proves the law is powerless to stop murder, so the law preventing ANY murder is unfounded.

I would say the law is not there to prevent anything, but to offer reprocussions for committing such acts, whether it be speeding, not licensing your plates, rape a child, murder your neighbors dog for eating your carrots, etc. Anyone can decide to do what they want at any given moment (road rage, steal off the counter at a gas station) but many "normal" people would consider the reprocussions before committing the crime, knowing that if they are caught, the law will prove them guilty and be punished for their actions. However if you disregard the law and have no fear of being caught, and choose to do whateve heinous action you so choose, the law will not stop you initially, until they catch you. And proof the law exists is that people are punished according to the law everyday. But I'm not saying the laws are always correct or equally followed. This is a major flaw in the legal system.

One person caught with an ounce of weed could get a fine and community service while another could get years in prison, even in the same state. The laws are not followed by the people there to protect them, and laws are written to punish some worse than others (usually by class or race).

I often imagine a world without law. What would that really be like? Like the old west in modern times? Though yes there were laws, but it was much easier to just go on a spree shooting and escape to another town and change your name and go on with your life. What if we were taught simply "what goes around comes around" so if you steal from someone, chances are they will come back and steal from you. Or if you kill someones wife or child, chances are they will come hunt you down. So you will live in fear your entire life if you do wrong to another person because there is no way to gauge how much pain and anger you caused them, and they would sureley repay that pain if there were no laws against it.

Think about if a close family member of yours was killed and the killer eventually was caught and tried in court, somehow only getting 25 years, and gets out on parole 12 years later. One life for 12 years in prison? That is just? Who makes this # up seriously? But, if a terrorist from a shadow organization bombs a bus in another country, that country can go to war with the "terrorists" and kill civilians accidentally as a byproduct of war and are not held accountable. Seems there are very weak laws there. But out of sight out of mind I suppose.

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

― H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

a reply to: iDope

I agree with the overall premise of what you say. It is true that "normal" people follow the law, but not because of the repercussions necessarily but because they don't want to commit such crimes. A good person doesn't want to ever commit murder, even knowing the punishment for committing murder. An honest person doesn't want to ever steal, even though they might be able to get away with it. I once found a wallet and cell phone with some money in the wallet, instead of taking it I called the number listed as "Dad" and asked him where his son lived so I could return the phone and wallet. The law did not make me do this, my own internal morality made me want to do this, it felt good.

The Wild West was also not without law. The movie Tombstone had a lot of truth to it. There was laws even then, some good, some bad, one such bad law is forcing people to give up their guns. The good people do this, while the criminals don't care and use guns anyways. Sadly, people in America have STILL not quite grasped this concept, although it could be argued that there is a more sinister agenda to the gun disarmament. The other good "law" was when Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday went on their streak of vengeance against the Cowboys, and from my research this actually took place more or less the way the movie portrayed it, (with some obvious artistic license of course). So while someone could go on a shooting spree, someone else could also take revenge. You then mention how it's unfair for a killer to only get 12 years in prison, and I agree. And in this regard, vigilante justice can be argued to be MORE effective than the law.

Thanks everyone for the comments, I have to call it a night. I will pick this back up tomorrow and will be back with a vengeance! haha.

a reply to: filosophia

No one is saying laws are fundamental. Of course the Nuremberg trials do not apply to any other situation. They were specifically held to prosecute Nazis guilty of war crimes. That doesn't change the fact that there were laws that were broken.

According to international law, namely, The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, what Hitler did was against the law. Hitler had his own laws (Nuremberg laws), and though they didn't apply to anything other than nazi Germany, they were still laws insofar as they were legislated and enforced by a government.

These are not magicians; they are people who look at history and try and prevent similar situations, or in some cases, seek to subjugate its populace. No we shouldn't put faith in any authority or law, but authorities and laws nonetheless exist, and are not illusions. They can be and are changed. No one is pulling rabbits out of hats. This is real life stuff here.

If anarchism was a natural law, we'd see anarchism. The thing is, we don't.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'd say that whenever a "lawful" government tortures a suspected terrorist until they give the confession that is so desired, that is basically like "pulling a rabbit out of a hat." Whenever a government enforces one law for the peasants, and ignores it for the royalty, that is like a slight of hand trick. Whenever a government disregards certain felonies from a prospective presidential candidate, that is nothing more than the disappearing assistant trick. You used the magician analogy first but I'm glad you did, because it is rather fitting to describe the law.

You say that you don't see anarchism in the real world. Murder, rape, theft, political corruption, I guess those things don't exist in your world, you must live in a pretty good world! There are laws against all these things, yet all these things happen. As others have pointed out, law is simply reactionary, so even calling it a law is incorrect, it should just be called "reactionary force." A real law is like gravity, it is instantaneously reactionary and also prevailing, the reason why we are orbiting the sun. Government law on the other hand is purely an illusion that requires constant enforcement for it to exist. The law does nothing but try and stem the tide of anarchy. As defenders of the law state: if law did not exist, we would live in the "law of the jungle" which is akin to saying anarchy. So anarchy is the real natural law, the government "law" is simply trying to stop this anarchy from being too out of control. So to say that anarchy is not a natural law, is just plainly false. Government law is like a rocket thrust, and the natural law is like gravity. So with enough rocket power, you can temporarily break the law of gravity, but as soon as your fuel runs out, what goes up must come down. In the same way, government law tries its best to break the law of anarchy (and it can be argued the government law commits crimes of its own, war, political corruption, etc), but as soon as it lets go for even a minute, society reverts back to its natural law: anarchy.

a reply to: filosophia

You say that you don't see anarchism in the real world. Murder, rape, theft, political corruption, I guess those things don't exist in your world, you must live in a pretty good world! There are laws against all these things, yet all these things happen. As others have pointed out, law is simply reactionary, so even calling it a law is incorrect, it should just be called "reactionary force." A real law is like gravity, it is instantaneously reactionary and also prevailing, the reason why we are orbiting the sun. Government law on the other hand is purely an illusion that requires constant enforcement for it to exist.

“Real” laws require a legislator, a government and a society. Nature does not legislate nor govern laws. Like I said, people called the regularities of nature “Laws” because they believed God legislated them. Nowadays, no one believes anything is being ordered by a magical judge to behave in accordance with natural laws. Nature does not enforce laws. Things do not fall because things are obeying laws. The law of gravitation is a description of observed phenomena, a model, not a decree. Your “real” laws are the illusion.

If you are saying your law of anarchy is the same species of scientific law as the law of gravitation, a model derived from repeated observation, what exactly have you repeatedly observed that makes your model a fact?

No; laws do not push things around, nor do they supervene on states of affairs. Laws are willingly followed and broken by members of society as they always have been.

a reply to: filosophia

See my argument about my lucky rabbit's foot. Saying a murder was prevented by the law is like proving a negative, it can't be done, so you say the law prevented that murder from happening, I say it was my lucky rabbit's foot. Or maybe, the law prevented a bad guy from murdering people because the law killed that bad guy, so dust off your hands and congratulate yourself that murder has been prevented (except of course having to murder the bad guy).

Many years ago, there was a person who perpetrated a series of violent and destructive acts against my family. I would have had no moral qualms about seeking this person out and ending his life. I did not do so for two reasons:

1. The risk of losing my freedom.
2. Information that led me to conclude that law enforcement would be apprehending this person and that he would be prosecuted for his crimes, found guilty and punished.

That one instance, which I can attest to from my own personal experience, is enough to disprove your thesis. Also, you're attempting to use equivocation to make a statement about the value of legal systems. "Law" obviously has multiple meanings. In science, a "law" is a statement about a force based on repeated observation and in the legal sense, a "law" is a rule that is enforced by some societal institution. You're making a poor comparison based largely on ambiguity in language.

It's true there are no crimes without laws, that by definition means the law must create the crime in order to punish it, so without law, there would be no crime. So there you have it, with law always comes crime. This further proves that law can never eliminate crime.

No. "Crime" is an attribute that can be assigned to an act in legal context. Without law, only that attribute ceases to exist, not the act. Laws do not create the acts which they define as criminal.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

You're making a poor comparison based largely on ambiguity in language.

I am also a little confused by the semantic component of the thread.

I would simply say that nature and natural processes have shaped our bodies, cultures and societies. To that extent, our ethics and morals are best mated with legislation which can withstand natural ratiocinative inspection.

Social engineering laws are artificial, disruptive, unsustainable and unlawful.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well we can argue about semantics, but when you drop an object, it will fall 100 percent of the time, whether you call this the law of gravity or some phenomenon that we merely call gravity is besides the point. Now if a person kills someone, they may or may not face punishment, especially if they are a police officer or military, it depends on the whims of the judge in question. This is as clear as I can make it the difference between a real law and a fake law. I suppose if you wanted to worry about semantics, you could call it institutionalized tyranny, rather than anarchy, but then I'd argue that even tyranny is built up on the illusion that the tyrant has some type of moral law behind him, which he obviously doesn't.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not making the poor comparison based on ambiguity, I'm just using the terms other people use. The system of justice that we live under is universally called "The Law," I'm just pointing out that this isn't true, whereas gravity is more closely a real law. So I'm not the one playing word games, the "law-makers" are.

Ultimately it was your own individual choice that decided to not pursue the criminal in question that harmed your family. You were no doubt influenced by the threat of the law, but that was still your choice. Another person in the same situation may not have the same self-control. If you really wanted to do something, the law, as usual, could only react to your vigilantism, and not prevent you from doing it. Plus, anecdotal evidence is never enough to disprove or prove a theory.

a reply to: filosophia

I'm not making the poor comparison based on ambiguity, I'm just using the terms other people use. The system of justice that we live under is universally called "The Law," I'm just pointing out that this isn't true, whereas gravity is more closely a real law. So I'm not the one playing word games, the "law-makers" are.

The two meanings of the word law are different enough that a reasonable argument could be made for considering them separate words that are homographs of one another. What you've been doing is similar to saying, "criminal records aren't real records because you can't listen to them on a turntable."

Ultimately it was your own individual choice that decided to not pursue the criminal in question that harmed your family. You were no doubt influenced by the threat of the law, but that was still your choice. Another person in the same situation may not have the same self-control. If you really wanted to do something, the law, as usual, could only react to your vigilantism, and not prevent you from doing it.

Rules cannot react. You're using yet a third meaning for the word law and this time it's that of colloquial usage referring to the whole of the criminal justice system. I think it's interesting that you're okay with saying that members of the criminal justice system are compelled to react based on the breaking of these "illusions" but that you otherwise deny that the actions of people are influenced by them. Don't you see the contradiction?

Maybe its the word "prevent" that you really take issue with? Perhaps we should use something with a bit less definiteness such as "discourage" or "inhibit?"

Plus, anecdotal evidence is never enough to disprove or prove a theory.

If it helps, ask me if I've ever considered murder and not committed the act because it's illegal. Then ask the same question of a bunch of other people. The answers to the question would be quantitative empirical data in the real of sociology. You could also do statistical analysis of the prevalence of homicide in areas under the jurisdiction of institutions enforcing laws against murder and those that are not. That's about the best you're going to do to test a hypothesis relating to human behavior. That's why sociologists most often deal with probabilistic causation.

a reply to: greencmp

I am also a little confused by the semantic component of the thread.

I would simply say that nature and natural processes have shaped our bodies, cultures and societies. To that extent, our ethics and morals are best mated with legislation which can withstand natural ratiocinative inspection.

Social engineering laws are artificial, disruptive, unsustainable and unlawful.

That sounds very reasonable and I agree with you to a large extent. Most laws arising from paternalism or religious morality are ultimately doomed to failure and wreak havoc on society while they exist.

a reply to: filosophia
Anarchy, yeah, well said, but you forgot something.
I'd like to add:


But reading this discussion immediately shows what the problem is: people panik when you threaten the ma'at.
"What no laws? I have to find out how to be a decent human for myself? Protect myself? I say death-penality and give the police tanks an make laws about how loud we are alowed to fart!"

a reply to: filosophia
Thank you that was a beautifully insightful read.
I would like to share this short talk by Alan Watts.

a reply to: filosophia

Yes laws are human artifacts. Even "real" laws are. But I'm not sure how that makes them illusions and thus we live in anarchy. They have an evolutionary beginning. For instance our aversion to disgust probably has much to do with the laws and morality we abide by today. No one is happy and in good spirits at the scene of a brutal crime.

An object will not fall 100% of the time. But like you said it's besides the point.

The reason I am worried about the semantics is because it sounds like you are arguing that the principles devised to describe natural phenomenon are real laws while the rules devised to order a society are illusions. If you could change the definition of law, what would you suggest?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is a complicated topic with multiple vectors of debate.

In almost all human situations, actual law has little or nothing to do with non-criminal behavior. The threat of reciprocity is what keeps honest men honest so to speak. I think that is what the OP is referring to when he implies that law is illusory, and it certainly is in that respect. Where it isn't is when the state becomes the aggressor and turns law against the citizenry, a circumstance which can be avoided by appropriately limited official power.

For me, the reason for making the argument in defense of anarchy is that it truly is possible but, not actually completely realizable. I only needed to accept it myself before I could use it as the demand with which to open negotiations with statists and be honestly unflustered by the implications. Essentially, just as interventionists have made socialist demands with the expressed intention of settling for mere interventionist and protectionist policies, I intend to demand anarchy with the knowledge that I have a lot of wiggle room to settle for constitutional republicanism.