Philosophical Anarchism: A Natural Law

Just trying to sharpen my wits, and get some others insight on this topic.

Terms: Anarchy, Anarchism, Intellectual Anarchy, Philosophical Anarchy

Literal Definition: An-archy, An (not) archy (hierarchy). Anarchy = No Hierarchy. Other definition: Government Never Works. Societal Law is an Illusion.

Summation: Intellectual Anarchy is NOT about burning down store fronts or wearing black masks on your face, that is not part of the discussion. Philosophical Anarchy is a fact of nature, specifically with regards to how society operates and human free will. Anarchy is not about disproving natural laws like gravity but rather illustrating the fact that government and law, regardless of the form, is just an illusion. Anarchy is akin to "Survival of the Fittest." It may not be ideal, people may not like it, but it's a natural fact. Intellectual Anarchy is not about liking or disliking it, or carving an 'A' into your forehead, it's just about realizing that that is the nature of reality. Philosophical Anarchy is not a 'form' of government, nor is it some type of movement to create some type of Anarchic Government, which would be a contradiction of terms. We already live in anarchy.

Some proofs that we live in an Anarchic state:

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 can also argue that my lucky rabbit's foot PREVENTS MORE murder from occurring, and that would be equally unfounded. I could also argue that people's inherent sense of goodwill prevents lots of murder from happening, and therefore governmental law is not doing anything. I could also say that Christianity, or Islam, or Pastafarianism prevents widespread murder but that too would be equally unfounded. So here we have the most heinous crime there is, murder, being completely unphased by the harsh penalties of the law. The fact that murder happens irregardless of the harsh penalties of the law proves the law is doing nothing. The same argument can be used for stealing, or any other type of law.

Now I will admit that people believe in the law, just like people believe in Santa Clause or religion, but just because someone believes in some old guy with a beard living in the clouds, or magic talking unicorns, that doesn't prove it exists. So by pointing out that there is a 'government building' or a 'constitution' does not actually prove it is doing anything. As the anarchic sage George W. Bush said (yes, I also just threw up in my mouth a little bit): The Constitution is just a G-D piece of paper. But speaking of 'his holiness', Bush's war against well, whomever, proves that rather than the "law" preventing murder, it actually allows tyrants and dictators to kill with impunity. A well spoken cliche but one that fits this situation is: Everything Hitler did was legal. So, how does law prevent any type of crime from happening?

Now, if you said, well, does law simply allow tyrants to kill without fear of punishment? That would be like saying a miracle worker cons people out of their money because of the veracity of religion. Just because people foolishly believe a traveling miracle worker has spiritual powers, does not mean he actually does. So just because Hitler or Bush had the law on their side, doesn't actually mean it is something realistic. At that point all you are really proving is that delusions exist, and no one is really denying this. As Einstein said, two things are infinite, the universe, maybe, and people's stupidity, most definitely.

Again, this isn't about whether you like it or not. I don't necessarily like the law of gravity but I put up with it because I have no choice. So, questions, comments, rude insults, funny quips, whatever you like, but what I'm hoping for is some intense intellectual debate on this subject. I've never yet encountered formidable opposition to this theory, so that is my humble hope. Calling all takers. Not for the feint of heart.

a reply to: filosophia

Bravo!

I would add that society (a group of individuals who associate with one another) does much better when each individual uses their own initiative to alleviate their most discomforting problems.

a reply to: filosophia

Well presented.


"There's no Government life Self-Government."

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: filosophia

Bravo!

I would add that society (a group of individuals who associate with one another) does much better when each individual uses their own initiative to alleviate their most discomforting problems.

Yes, this goes along with my view of Individualism, in which a group is simply compromised of individuals, so even a group of choreographed synchronized swimmers are still made up of individuals who must use their own free will to act in accordance with a group. The fact that they have to work to achieve this end just proves that individualism is the real factor behind any group, and real life of course is hardly so choreographed.

Society does work better when it values the interests of individuals, since that is the real motive power for society.

a reply to: filosophia

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 can also argue that my lucky rabbit's foot PREVENTS MORE murder from occurring, and that would be equally unfounded. I could also argue that people's inherent sense of goodwill prevents lots of murder from happening, and therefore governmental law is not doing anything. I could also say that Christianity, or Islam, or Pastafarianism prevents widespread murder but that too would be equally unfounded. So here we have the most heinous crime there is, murder, being completely unphased by the harsh penalties of the law. The fact that murder happens irregardless of the harsh penalties of the law proves the law is doing nothing. The same argument can be used for stealing, or any other type of law.

No, the fact that murders happen despite the existence of laws against it (and enforcement of these laws) does not prove that the laws "[are] doing nothing." For this to be true, there could be no instances where murder was prevented by the laws or more precisely, the potential consequences of enforcement of the laws upon the would-be murderer. It only takes one to prove this statement false.

Setting that aside and ignoring the fact that by definition, there are no such things as crimes without laws, one can easily find statistical evidence for the efficacy of laws and other societal rules.

a reply to: filosophia

Indeed, I want to complicate it immediately by adding the catallactic argument that free markets, when correctly operating, function in the very same way. But, I should just enjoy the simplicity of the thread as it stands.

Sláinte

a reply to: filosophia

I don't think laws should be put in place to "prevent crime." That is the crime prevention model and it is inherently tyrannical.

We only have a law against murder so that if someone commits murder, they are apprehend after the fact. Law is inherently reactionary, and should not be used as a form of problem-solving (crime prevention). The only reason someone attempts to use law to solve problems, is becuase they we too daft to become scientists or engineers (society's true problem-solvers).

I do agree with your premise though; law is a human concept that we created. I wouldn't suggest that law and hierarchies are mutually inclusive, though, they are not. Organisms at every level form themselves into hierarchies without a concept of law.

Organization outside of a system of law is voluntary and takes place according to the nature of the organism. The organism has the right to defend itself from coercion according to anarchy.

All systems of law organize a group against their nature through acts of coercion. The organism does not have the right to defend itself from any coercion.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: filosophia

Sure, the laws are doing something, giving a cushy salary to law-makers (that don't actually get around to eliminating crime). But just like the miracle worker who cons his audience, it's not because of some magical property of the law, but the gullibility of the masses.

"For this to be true, there could be no instances where murder was prevented by the laws or more precisely, the potential consequences of enforcement of the laws upon the would-be murderer. It only takes one to prove this statement false. "

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).

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.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: filosophia

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 can also argue that my lucky rabbit's foot PREVENTS MORE murder from occurring, and that would be equally unfounded. I could also argue that people's inherent sense of goodwill prevents lots of murder from happening, and therefore governmental law is not doing anything. I could also say that Christianity, or Islam, or Pastafarianism prevents widespread murder but that too would be equally unfounded. So here we have the most heinous crime there is, murder, being completely unphased by the harsh penalties of the law. The fact that murder happens irregardless of the harsh penalties of the law proves the law is doing nothing. The same argument can be used for stealing, or any other type of law.

No, the fact that murders happen despite the existence of laws against it (and enforcement of these laws) does not prove that the laws "[are] doing nothing." For this to be true, there could be no instances where murder was prevented by the laws or more precisely, the potential consequences of enforcement of the laws upon the would-be murderer. It only takes one to prove this statement false.

Setting that aside and ignoring the fact that by definition, there are no such things as crimes without laws, one can easily find statistical evidence for the efficacy of laws and other societal rules.

I have thought long and hard about this point of view and I believe I can summarize the basic premise to say that you seek to limit uncontrolled reciprocity.

I think that interpretation is accurate and I hope that it is not insulting or otherwise offensive as I am simply interested in fleshing out the beliefs which underlie popular sympathies toward authoritarianism (which we all share on some level, even me believe it or not though it is small).

Is that a fair assessment?

a reply to: filosophia
I dont know i think things are finite there is an end to things even mans stupidity.
Just that Stupidity ends three feet past the universe so we are # outta luck there.

a reply to: filosophia

Yes, this goes along with my view of Individualism, in which a group is simply compromised of individuals, so even a group of choreographed synchronized swimmers are still made up of individuals who must use their own free will to act in accordance with a group. The fact that they have to work to achieve this end just proves that individualism is the real factor behind any group, and real life of course is hardly so choreographed.

Society does work better when it values the interests of individuals, since that is the real motive power for society.

YES.

I do believe that many collectivists have good intentions--because--on the surface the "empowerment of the group" seems like an effective philosophy for improving the lives of as many people as possible. But, trying to "empower the group" only leads to generalizations about individuals which leads to the group breaking-down (communism and the Soviet Union).

It's counter-intuitive, but a group is only the sum of its parts. Give the individual the tools he needs to voluntarily strengthen himself according to his nature--and you build stronger groups by proxy.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

But in order for law to be reactionary, we must murder anyone who commits murder, thereby making it impossible to successfully eliminate murder. The other option is to imprison a person (kidnapping, also a crime), which does not successfully prevent them from making future murders. The way the law gets away with this is by changing the language, by saying that we "executed" a murderer, or we "confiscated" a thief's possessions (still murder, and theft, respectively).

I'll agree there are hierarchies in nature, like a queen bee and her workers, but with that regard I consider that a natural law, like gravity. Bees, as far as we can tell, have no free will, they rely on instincts, so yes, there are hierarchies in insects and organisms, but Philosophical Anarchy more pertains to humans and not animals. Sadly some humans do operate like drones, but unlike bees, they can change their behavior, whereas I don't think a bee can go off on its own and start some type of "sovereign bee" community.

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: filosophia

I don't think laws should be put in place to "prevent crime." That is the crime prevention model and it is inherently tyrannical.

We only have a law against murder so that if someone commits murder, they are apprehend after the fact. Law is inherently reactionary, and should not be used as a form of problem-solving (crime prevention). The only reason someone attempts to use law to solve problems, is becuase they we too daft to become scientists or engineers (society's true problem-solvers).

I do agree with your premise though; law is a human concept that we created. I wouldn't suggest that law and hierarchies are mutually inclusive, though, they are not. Organisms at every level form themselves into hierarchies without a concept of law.

Organization outside of a system of law is voluntary and takes place according to the nature of the organism. The organism has the right to defend itself from coercion according to anarchy.

All systems of law organize a group against their nature through acts of coercion. The organism does not have the right to defend itself from any coercion.

Yes, it is illegal for police to prevent crime. They may only apprehend suspected criminals and investigate suspected crimes.

The Law

a reply to: greencmp

More or less you are correct, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in murdering someone who commits murder and calling this justice, this is what I take from your statement about reciprocity, (eye for an eye), if this is wrong please clarify. But on another level I am saying that this is simply fact, regardless of my likes or dislikes. Yes, I don't want people to murder, so I would like to believe the law prevents murder, However, that doesn't change the fact that murder still happens, nor does it change the fact that a "lawful execution" is still murder. The fallacy is that an eye for an eye will somehow prevent murder, this not only perpetuates murder through the punishment but also fails to prevent the crime in the first place. The real motive force in society is Individualism, so that a person who engages in an eye for an eye punishment does so because there is nothing preventing this from happening, so that too is anarchy.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Agreed.

I would go one step further and say law actually makes people more stupid, because it sendsathe message that is actually untrue, that the law is in control... Not only is it untrue, its a con and peoppe who beleive it are kidding themselves. The law and the criminal justice system is not in control, because crimes are committed at every level of society, and thst includes the agents of the law. Thinking the law is i control, and not understanding the truth about the natural anarchy in the world, actually makes it easier for the most corrupt members of society to get away with immoral / criminal behaviour...

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: filosophia


Yes, it is illegal for police to prevent crime. They may only apprehend suspected criminals and investigate suspected crimes.

The Law

Police and law-makers do try and prevent crime though all the time, by pointing out the punishment for crimes, and by informing people of what is or is not a crime, which also points out the absurdity of the "Law", you have to be told what is or is not a law, such as the tax code. This is akin to the Road Runner giving Wile E Coyote a book on gravity as a necessity before he falls out of the sky. Given this frame of mind, what is the law but a reactionary force? This further proves that the law is fallible and is nothing more than force. If I could beat up anyone I disliked and no one could prevent me from doing this, then it might as well be called a Law. But since all force eventually comes to rest, the Law too is simply an illusion, a temporary fit of rage, let's call it.

But to use another example, of speeding. Technically, speeding is against the "law," but speeding by itself is not harming anyone. The police ticket people all the time for speeding, and why? Well honestly for revenue, but if they wanted to be tactful they'd say to prevent injury. So in this regard the police do punish people all the time in hopes that they will prevent a real crime (like vehicular homicide). But the truth is it is simply an arbitrary number placed on a sign that needs constant enforcement otherwise no one would follow it. And I don't need to point out that the biggest speeders are in fact the police. I think everyone's experienced this at one point or another.

originally posted by: filosophia
a reply to: greencmp

More or less you are correct, I am pointing out the hypocrisy in murdering someone who commits murder and calling this justice, this is what I take from your statement about reciprocity, (eye for an eye), if this is wrong please clarify. But on another level I am saying that this is simply fact, regardless of my likes or dislikes. Yes, I don't want people to murder, so I would like to believe the law prevents murder, However, that doesn't change the fact that murder still happens, nor does it change the fact that a "lawful execution" is still murder. The fallacy is that an eye for an eye will somehow prevent murder, this not only perpetuates murder through the punishment but also fails to prevent the crime in the first place. The real motive force in society is Individualism, so that a person who engages in an eye for an eye punishment does so because there is nothing preventing this from happening, so that too is anarchy.

I like Rothbard's non-aggression axiom which prevents the state from committing any crime whatsoever. If a crime is to be committed, it must be done by an individual in an unofficial capacity.

Justice can certainly exist sans official oversight and has been the rule rather than the exception throughout our history. I refer the reader to the famous quote "crime doesn't pay". When people are allowed to defend themselves, it most certainly does not.

So, the limit to reciprocity (which is necessary to some extent) is the local cultural predisposition against chaos which is in fact the very instinct which has run wild and caused the creation of such grossly extensive and intrusive governance which we seem to be predisposed to.

Frankly, this reminds me of an autoimmune disorder.

a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

I totally agree, and great point. I like to relate this to prostitution. People make laws against prostitution because they don't want their fair city to be tarnished by it, but this in no way eliminates prostitution (the so called oldest profession). In this way the law simply is pushing things under the rug, which leads to more crime. I don't think anyone wants prostitution to be legal, but it's clear that with it being illegal and unregulated, more problems come about: abusive pimps, STD's, underage child trafficking. Anarchy is not ideal by any stretch, so I'm not condoning it, just pointing out that this is how it is.

People also use this "shove it under the rug" fallacy with drugs. They say something like, "we can't legalize heroin, because then people would do heroin," completely ignoring the fact that people do heroin regardless of if it's legal or not. I touched on this a little bit with Bush and his wars, but you added to it: law, rather than preventing murder, allows for the greatest mass murder in history: war. So you're right, the law makes people stupid and rather than preventing crime actually makes it worse. We know that politicians who commit crimes are immune from punishment, since they are the lawmakers. This can be arguably worse than some crackhead who robs a 7-11. At the very least, the crackhead might get arrested or overdose or get shot by the store clerk, but the corrupt politician lives to commit crime another day.

a reply to: greencmp

Or another way of putting it is, the state can not do anything a citizen can not do, and anything the state can do, a citizen can do. So a citizen can give a cop a speeding ticket, or have a president arrested. Basically this would just nullify the state and make government irrelevant. Perhaps if people accepted that the law is arbitrary perhaps we could have that one day. Society has moved a long ways, from assuming a king or priest has some divine power, to civil liberties, but there is still a very far distance to go.