I just got a comment (here) that set me to thinking about a political philosophy known as Anarchism. Wikipedia describes it here in some detail.
While I admit Anarchism poses a certain appeal, I don’t think the human race is quite ready for it. That in part explains my response (here) to the comment. So long as human beings have imperfect and twisted souls, we will seek immoral advantages over each other. So long as one among us is willing to impose upon the rights of another, Anarchism will not work. We will need some means, a government, to enforce moral laws.
Advertisement
” So long as human beings have imperfect and twisted souls, we will seek immoral advantages over each other. So long as one among us is willing to impose upon the rights of another, Anarchism will not work. We will need some means, a government, to enforce moral laws.”
This is a combination of two logical fallacies – nonsequitur and false alternative.
It is a nonsequitur because the same types of human beings, with the same sorts of twisted souls, man government as exist in the citizenry generally. Arguably, in fact, those who gravitate toward power and government have more twisted souls and less ethical sense than the average person in the population [see, e.g., the chapter entitled “Why The Worst Get On Top” in F.A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom.
It is a false alternative because you are apparently assuming that laws will be invariably moral just because they are laws and that such laws will be objectively enforced by those who man government. History and contemporary experience prove that both assumptions are false. Indeed, they become more false the more government does. Note, most recently, the Texas CPS persecution of the FLDS people.
Craig – Thank you for visiting and offering an interesting comment.
I have yet to read F.A. Hayek’s works. Considering the number of times I have heard conservatives mention him, I must concede I have been neglectful in that respect.
Nonetheless, I think can still answer to the logical falacies you mentioned. As I see it, what you offer are two aspects of the same argument. The argument is this. Because men cannot create a perfect government, we should not create any government at all. I think this sort of logicial fallacy is called an appeal to adverse consequences (see here).
What you refer to as the “nonsequitur” portion of your argument is an appeal to fear. It suggests that we will inevitably appoint leaders more twisted and with less ethical sense than the general population. To be frank, I don’t know how to disprove this assertion. Nobody does. How do you measure the number of twists in the soul of another? What is the measure of “ethical sense”? All that I know is that when someone threatens my safety or the safety of my family, I call a representative of government, a policman. I do not expect policemen to be saintly, just to have guns and to know how and when to use those guns.
The second portion your argument moves the goalposts to unachievable perfection. It presumes that the only adequate government would be a perfect government. Who expects government to be “invariably moral”? If we had such expectations, why would anybody advocate limited government? What would be the need?
I think most people, myself included, just want to have their rights protected from foreign threats and the worse villains within our society contained. We know our leaders are not saints.
Since my political picks are not doing particularly well this year, I certainly don’t think we are selecting best the people for public office. Nonetheless, I would rather have Democrats in charge than no government at all.
Perhaps what you are concerned about is moderation. Consider your proposition from the other direction. Assuming we could figure out how to select the most saintly person in the world, would it be wise to put that almost “perfect” soul wholly in charge of the rest of us? Would that almost perfect soul take the job?
Anarchy is too extreme, and a totalitarian state run by any human being would be equally intolerable. Isn’t the problem finding a middle way?
In preparation for the RPVA Convention, I watched a video from the Henrico Library on Anarchism.
I had never read very much about this fringe movement and, like most people, thought that Anarchists were just a bunch of bomb throwers.
From the video, I learned that much of the USA movement was devoted to the idea that we could self govern without a large central government. The interviewees sounded more like modern day Libertarians than bomb throwers.
It was also interesting that a substantial part of the USA Anarchists were Jewish and were sometimes also connected with Communist movements, although not necessarily the Stalinists in Russia. Anti-Semitism played a role in the persecution of Anarchists prior to WWI.
Listening to these old folks in 60 Minutes style interviews was enlightening and a bit cute. One grandmotherly woman cackled with laughter as she recounted the days of fighting against one form of oppression or another.
Another elderly lady had started a commune with her husband that apparently still functions, allowing its members to thrive while substantially off of the various grids that control us. I hope DHS’Michael Chertoff will leave them alone.
Nobody in the interviews were asked about national defense or core infrastructure, such as water and sewerage systems and government achievement in those areas, so the viewer was left to conclude that the Anarchist movement has faded for the good reason that their ideas, like being free from government control, were good, but that moderate versions of those ideas are incorporated into the evolving political messages of some Libertarians and a growing number of Republicans.
Most of us recognize that our body of laws has gotten out of hand. We simply have too many ways to be prosecuted by the government and be sued by each other. However, we still recognize the utility of core government infrastructure; when we flush the toilet, when we turn on the shower, when we drive to the store for food, etc. We all don’t want to live the communal life on some remote farm.
So, listen to your inner Anarchist and keep supporting less government and more freedom, but lets still keep the good things, like toilets that flush, showers that work and roads that are free of tolls or other forms of checkpoints that allow our free, unmonitored or impeded travel.
I tried to be an Anarchist, but the meeting were Hell.