I realized something earlier that I haven’t seen anyone else mention, yet. And it could be the simplest and most singularly damning refutation of anarchism out there, unless I’m mistaken somewhere in it. (it prompted my own realization that anarchy actually isn’t proper to man’s life)
So is this accurate?
To clarify briefly, I’m talking about a very specific variety of anarchism which is identical to O’ism in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, but obviously not politics. (like Roy Childs) I’ll call it proto-Objectivism; abbreviated pO’ism.
Someone would reach the conclusion of pO’ism by an irrational surplus of optimism, a touch of epistemological sloppiness and utter ignorance to the meaning and purpose of objectivity, as it applies to politics and a society. (at least those; there may be more)
For myself it was really, literal ignorance. When I read about “objective laws” and the “objective use of retaliatory force” I thought it meant objective, as in true-to-reality and rational. It’s taken me two days just to wrap my mind around the actual meaning of it.
But I digress. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, (to the best of my knowledge) without any concept of POLITICAL objectivity and distorted thusly (it’s really not a very large or noticeable perversion) would logically lead one to pO’ism. Hence the name, proto-Objectivism; a stunted little philosophy which was/ is attempting to become Objectivism, but hasn’t made it there yet.
So that’s my terminology and that’s the difference between the two. There appear to be quite a few threads on this forum, usually debating the necessity of a government, in which the anarchists are implicitly referring to pO’ism. And that’s also the kicker because the subtle misrepresentations and that one little deletion are readily visible whenever they discuss retributive force.
You know what I’m referring to.
And the usual Objectivist objections to it are true (it would lead to endless feuding and bloodshed), but without that crucial concept it’s very easy to chalk that up to irrational people doing stupid things, or any number of other personal flaws, and dismiss it altogether. Without that concept, even if one was shown conclusive proof that wholesale slaughter would ensue, it would still feel like a betrayal to concede the point; it seems far more like the moral-practical false dichotomy, and someone who thinks that human beings are good enough simply govern themselves isn’t likely to abandon his morals in the name of the practical. (hence the endless, volumous threads already devoted to this argument, in which nobody convinces anyone of anything)
But what I realized this morning was that not only WOULD bloodshed ensue, but in a pO’ist society it SHOULD!! In any case of ambiguous legality, wholesale slaughter would result, not from human flaws or vices, but from their VIRTUES!!!
Imagine a hypothetical pO’ist society in which almost every member holds that same philosophy explicitly and attempts to practice it, in reality, on Earth. There is no government. The people defend their own rights and when they’re violated they avenge their own rights, without trials or supervision.
One morning in pO’ville, Adam goes outside to get his newspaper when he notices someone talking to his neighbor, Bob, on his doorstep. He can’t help but overhear the stranger’s vague remarks about bad things happening to good people’s homes.
The stranger is actually a man named Charlie, who sells home insurance door-to-door. But Adam has no way of knowing that at this point.
When Bob hands Charlie a thick wad of cash the salesman enters his address into a database on his smartphone, thus insuring him.
Adam sees the transaction and, due to it’s shady overtones and Bob’s history, immediately realizes that he is witnessing an act of extortion. Acting as the defender of Bob’s rights he pulls out a gun and shoots Charlie in the leg, before running over and returning Bob’s cash. (Bob, the only immoral citizen in pO’ville, thanks his neighbor profusely)
At that moment Dan, a competing salesman who was canvassing one street over, runs over to investigate the screaming from several seconds prior. Seeing Charlie lying in a pool of his own blood and perfectly still (passed out from pain/trauma) he whips out his blowgun and fires a poison dart at Adam.
Adam dies promptly. Dan walks over to Bob and asks him what happened; Bob explains to him that Adam had stolen all of his priceless porcelain and hidden it in his house and, when confronted by Charlie, had shot him where he stood. Dan, true to his ruthless dedication to justice, helps Bob retrieve his “stolen” belongings.
And so, in a society like that:
-Adam dies horribly, because he attempted to stop injustice from occurring
-Dan, for the same reasons as Adam, commits murder and theft and later has a bounty placed on him by Adam’s wife
-Charlie is wounded and robbed in the street for no reason whatsoever
-Bob becomes much richer for the entire episode, because of his treachery
I probably could’ve come up with better examples, but whatever. The point is that not only would anarchy proliferate pillaging and slaughter; it would specifically do the most damage to the most virtuous!!
If person A kills C in self-defense, and B witnesses the act (but misinterprets it as murder) he SHOULD, by the pO’ist logic, punish A himself. If he attacks him but A sees him coming in advance, then A should kill B in self-defense (again) and B should kill A to avenge C.
So A should kill B AND B should kill A. In which, regardless of the outcome, justice and injustice will be enacted.
So anyway, I’m not sure what to make of this. Is there something to that?
