Post by withinsilence on Apr 11, 2016 1:01:00 GMT
ANARCHY AND DEMOCRACY
It may be considered a mad enough exercise to attempt to rescue the word “anarchy” –
however, to smear the word “democracy” seems almost beyond folly. Fewer words have
received more reverence in the modern Western world. Democracy is in its essence the
idea that we all run society. We choose individuals to represent our wishes, and the
majority then gets to impose its wishes upon everyone else, subject ideally to the
limitations of certain basic inalienable rights.
The irrational aspect of this is very hard to see, because of the endless amount of
propaganda that supports democracy (though only in democracies, which is telling), but it
is impossible to ignore once it becomes evident.
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 25 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
Democracy is based on the idea that the majority possesses sufficient wisdom to both know
how society should be run, and to stay within the bounds of basic moral rules. The voters
are considered to be generally able to judge the economic, foreign policy, educational,
charitable, monetary, health care, military et al policies proposed by politicians. These
voters then wisely choose between this buffet of various policy proposals, and the majority
chooses wisely enough that whatever is then enacted is in fact a wise policy – and their
chosen leader then actually enacts what he or she promised in advance, and the leader’s
buffet of proposals is entirely wise, and no part of it requires moral compromise. Also, the
majority is virtuous enough to respect the rights of the minority, even though they
dominate them politically. Few of us would support the idea of a democracy where the
majority could vote to put the minority to death, say, or steal all their property.
In addition, for even the idea of a democracy to work, the minority must be considered wise
and virtuous enough to accept the decisions of the majority.
In short, democracy is predicated on the premises that:
A. The majority of voters are wise and virtuous enough to judge an incredibly wide
variety of complex proposals by politicians.
B. The majority of voters are wise and virtuous enough to refrain from the desire to
impose their will arbitrarily upon the minority, but instead will respect certain
universal moral ideals.
C. The minority of voters who are overruled by the majority are wise and virtuous
enough to accept being overruled, and will patiently await the next election in order
to try to have their say once more, and will abide by the universal moral ideals of the
society.
This, of course, is a complete contradiction. If society is so stuffed to the gills with wise,
brilliant, virtuous and patient souls, who all respect universal moral ideals and are willing
to put aside their own particular preferences for the sake of the common good, what on
earth do we need a government for?
Whenever this question is raised, the shining image of the “noble citizenry” mysteriously
vanishes, and all sorts of specters are raised in their place. “Well, without a government,
everyone would be at each other’s throats, there would be no roads, the poor would be
uneducated, the old and sick would die in the streets etc. etc. etc.”
This is a blatant and massive contradiction, and it is highly informative that it is nowhere
part of anyone’s discourse in the modern world.
Democracy is valid because just about everyone is wise and moral, we are told. When we
accept this, and question the need for a government, the story suddenly reverses, and we
are told that we need a government because just about everyone is amoral and selfish.
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 26 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
Do you see how we have an ambivalent relationship not just with anarchism, but with
democracy itself?
In the same way, whenever an anarchist talks about a stateless society, he is immediately
expected to produce evidence that every single poor person in the future will be well taken
care of by voluntary charity.
Again, this involves a rank contradiction, which involves democracy.
The welfare state, old-age pensions, and “free” education for the poor are all considered in
a democracy to be valid reflections of the virtuous will of the people – these government
programs were offered up by politicians, and voluntarily accepted by the majority who
voted for them, and also voluntarily accepted by the minority who have agreed to obey the
will of the majority!
In other words, the majority of society is perfectly willing to give up an enormous chunk of
its income in order to help the sick, the old and the poor – and we know this because those
programs were voted for and created by democratic governments!
Ah, says the anarchist, then we already know that the majority of people will be perfectly
willing to help the sick, the old and the poor in a stateless society – democracy provides
empirical and incontrovertible evidence of this simple fact!
Again, when this basic argument is put forward, the myth of the noble citizenry evaporates
once more!
“Oh no, without the government forcing people to be charitable, no one would lift a finger
to help the poor, people are so selfish, they don’t care etc. etc. etc.”
This paradox cannot be unraveled this side of insanity. If a democratic government must
force a selfish and unwilling populace to help the poor, then government programs do not
reflect the will of the people, and democracy is a lie, and we must get rid of it – or at least
stop pretending to vote.
If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will
of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a
stateless society – and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity
than government programs.
Now it is certainly easy to just shrug off the contradictions above and it say that
somewhere, somehow, there just must be a good answer to these objections.
Although this can be a pleasant thing to do in the short run, it is not something I have ever
had much luck doing in the long term. These contradictions come back and nag at me – and
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 27 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
I am actually very glad that they have done so, since I think that the progress of human
thought utterly depends upon us taking nothing for granted.
The first virtue is always honesty, and we should be honest enough to admit when we do
not have reasonable answers to these reasonable objections. This does not mean that we
must immediately come up with new “answers,” but rather just sit with the questions for a
while, ponder them, look for weaknesses or contradictions in our objections – and only
when we are satisfied that the objections are valid should we begin looking for rational and
empirical answers to even some of the oldest and most commonly-accepted “solutions.”
This process of ceasing to believe in non-answers is fundamental to science, to philosophy
– and is the first step towards anarchism, or the acceptance that violence is never a valid
solution to non-violent problems.
The above is taken from the free ebook "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux
cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/EA/Everyday_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf
It may be considered a mad enough exercise to attempt to rescue the word “anarchy” –
however, to smear the word “democracy” seems almost beyond folly. Fewer words have
received more reverence in the modern Western world. Democracy is in its essence the
idea that we all run society. We choose individuals to represent our wishes, and the
majority then gets to impose its wishes upon everyone else, subject ideally to the
limitations of certain basic inalienable rights.
The irrational aspect of this is very hard to see, because of the endless amount of
propaganda that supports democracy (though only in democracies, which is telling), but it
is impossible to ignore once it becomes evident.
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 25 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
Democracy is based on the idea that the majority possesses sufficient wisdom to both know
how society should be run, and to stay within the bounds of basic moral rules. The voters
are considered to be generally able to judge the economic, foreign policy, educational,
charitable, monetary, health care, military et al policies proposed by politicians. These
voters then wisely choose between this buffet of various policy proposals, and the majority
chooses wisely enough that whatever is then enacted is in fact a wise policy – and their
chosen leader then actually enacts what he or she promised in advance, and the leader’s
buffet of proposals is entirely wise, and no part of it requires moral compromise. Also, the
majority is virtuous enough to respect the rights of the minority, even though they
dominate them politically. Few of us would support the idea of a democracy where the
majority could vote to put the minority to death, say, or steal all their property.
In addition, for even the idea of a democracy to work, the minority must be considered wise
and virtuous enough to accept the decisions of the majority.
In short, democracy is predicated on the premises that:
A. The majority of voters are wise and virtuous enough to judge an incredibly wide
variety of complex proposals by politicians.
B. The majority of voters are wise and virtuous enough to refrain from the desire to
impose their will arbitrarily upon the minority, but instead will respect certain
universal moral ideals.
C. The minority of voters who are overruled by the majority are wise and virtuous
enough to accept being overruled, and will patiently await the next election in order
to try to have their say once more, and will abide by the universal moral ideals of the
society.
This, of course, is a complete contradiction. If society is so stuffed to the gills with wise,
brilliant, virtuous and patient souls, who all respect universal moral ideals and are willing
to put aside their own particular preferences for the sake of the common good, what on
earth do we need a government for?
Whenever this question is raised, the shining image of the “noble citizenry” mysteriously
vanishes, and all sorts of specters are raised in their place. “Well, without a government,
everyone would be at each other’s throats, there would be no roads, the poor would be
uneducated, the old and sick would die in the streets etc. etc. etc.”
This is a blatant and massive contradiction, and it is highly informative that it is nowhere
part of anyone’s discourse in the modern world.
Democracy is valid because just about everyone is wise and moral, we are told. When we
accept this, and question the need for a government, the story suddenly reverses, and we
are told that we need a government because just about everyone is amoral and selfish.
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 26 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
Do you see how we have an ambivalent relationship not just with anarchism, but with
democracy itself?
In the same way, whenever an anarchist talks about a stateless society, he is immediately
expected to produce evidence that every single poor person in the future will be well taken
care of by voluntary charity.
Again, this involves a rank contradiction, which involves democracy.
The welfare state, old-age pensions, and “free” education for the poor are all considered in
a democracy to be valid reflections of the virtuous will of the people – these government
programs were offered up by politicians, and voluntarily accepted by the majority who
voted for them, and also voluntarily accepted by the minority who have agreed to obey the
will of the majority!
In other words, the majority of society is perfectly willing to give up an enormous chunk of
its income in order to help the sick, the old and the poor – and we know this because those
programs were voted for and created by democratic governments!
Ah, says the anarchist, then we already know that the majority of people will be perfectly
willing to help the sick, the old and the poor in a stateless society – democracy provides
empirical and incontrovertible evidence of this simple fact!
Again, when this basic argument is put forward, the myth of the noble citizenry evaporates
once more!
“Oh no, without the government forcing people to be charitable, no one would lift a finger
to help the poor, people are so selfish, they don’t care etc. etc. etc.”
This paradox cannot be unraveled this side of insanity. If a democratic government must
force a selfish and unwilling populace to help the poor, then government programs do not
reflect the will of the people, and democracy is a lie, and we must get rid of it – or at least
stop pretending to vote.
If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will
of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a
stateless society – and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity
than government programs.
Now it is certainly easy to just shrug off the contradictions above and it say that
somewhere, somehow, there just must be a good answer to these objections.
Although this can be a pleasant thing to do in the short run, it is not something I have ever
had much luck doing in the long term. These contradictions come back and nag at me – and
E v e r y d a y A n a r c h y 27 | P a g e f r e e d o m a i n r a d i o . c o m
I am actually very glad that they have done so, since I think that the progress of human
thought utterly depends upon us taking nothing for granted.
The first virtue is always honesty, and we should be honest enough to admit when we do
not have reasonable answers to these reasonable objections. This does not mean that we
must immediately come up with new “answers,” but rather just sit with the questions for a
while, ponder them, look for weaknesses or contradictions in our objections – and only
when we are satisfied that the objections are valid should we begin looking for rational and
empirical answers to even some of the oldest and most commonly-accepted “solutions.”
This process of ceasing to believe in non-answers is fundamental to science, to philosophy
– and is the first step towards anarchism, or the acceptance that violence is never a valid
solution to non-violent problems.
The above is taken from the free ebook "Everyday Anarchy" by Stefan Molyneux
cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/books/EA/Everyday_Anarchy_by_Stefan_Molyneux_PDF.pdf