Atheists do not believe in a god or gods because they have not seen any proof that such a thing exists. The burden of proof is on the believer to provide evidence, or they cannot be held rational on this subject. Moreover I think every atheist would agree that it is absolutely ridiculous when a theist says that a human cannot have any morals through atheist thought because they don't have a god to give it to them. Atheists generally do not accept this argument.
I'm an ignostic but I also understand that most atheists are free thinking individuals and question things that others try to indoctrinate to them. This same mindset can apply to studying governments and anarchy philosophy.
The example of the theists asserting that atheists have no morals without a god to follow, could be compared to that of Statists asserting that humans can have no law or order or peace without a state to provide it. The burden of proof is on the statist to show why people cannot function in day to day life without the use of force to keep them in line, just like the burden of proof is on the theist to show how and why people cannot function in day to day life without following a God.
Another fundamental fallacy is that Statists also claim that humans are inherently evil and they need a system to keep them in line. The burden of proof is on them to show how a system, made of (according to the statist's previous argument) inherently evil humans, cannot be considered evil and how it has the legitimacy it is perceived to have.
Anarchy is not to be confused with "anomie". Anomie means "no law, no order, and complete chaos". The word anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarchos" which means "no archons" or "no rulers". There are many different theories of anarchy such as Anarcho-syndicalism/communism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Market Anarchy, and philosophies that they also stem from like Collectivist Anarchism, Individualist Anarchism, and Mutualist Anarchism. In Max Weber's influential definition of the state, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". This force is evident in tax deducted from source or simply without consent, and if you resist these taxes you inevitably will be held at gunpoint, kidnapped and locked up.
If one asks the question "how are we to bring a stateless society about?" it is essentially asking “how can we, advocates of liberty, free the world from governments?” This can be compared to asking "how can atheists free the world from irrationality?" People who advocate a voluntary society have the inevitable truth and logic already on their side, for now the best way is to be able to argue the points logically and eloquently without hostility and anger. This is important as the non-aggression principle is an important part of anarchy. It must also be important to note that defending a big coercive, subsidized corporation working within the slanted rules of the state is not something a real anarchist would do. Corporations are simply extensions of the state and should be ridiculed and avoided as much as possible. Defending these institutions is something Kevin Carson called “vulgar libertarianism” and that is something anarchists and libertarians do not want to associate themselves with.
So the question is not "can anarchy work?" but "why does statism work?” The only reason it can function is perceived legitimacy, just like religion. We can get rid of that perception by spreading the truth and refuting the propaganda of the state consistently.
6 comments:
Great work!
Hello.
I am going to substantially disagree with you on one point. And this is important.
You are correct about the atheist viewpoint in regards to the burden of proof, as we DO NOT MAKE claims, but rather defend against them. I.E., the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
However, the denizen of the state is in the EXACT SAME position as the Atheist!
Why? Because, unlike the gods, the State appears to actually exist, does function, and is the current default condition.
Thus, we as anarchists DO need to make the counter arguments as we are the ones making the claims.
Further, I think we need to start focusing a lot more on "what comes after" rather than just deconstructing the state. Not that the State doesn't need deconstructing, but most people are already aware of the failings of the State. They just see no viable alternative. Anarchy, in and of itself, is not a system or a proposed society, but merely a condition. Most anarchists have already worked that out in their head. The statist sees the absence, but not what replaces it.
At least that has been my experience. YMMV.
Awesome blog! I found you through your youtube page, and I really like what you're doing here.
"Don't Worship Men as Gods" is a very effective title. It gives both the Christian and the Atheist cause to pause. The Christian has to make sure that he isn't guilty of idolatry, and the Atheist has to make sure that he isn't guilty of thinking like a Christian.
Nice. :-)
Could you shoot me an email some time? I would love to pick your brain, learn who influenced you, and invite you to join in on some publicity projects for the movement.
Subbed. Hope to hear more from you.
The state is a false abstraction as a physical entity, but real as a social system of oppression. Deep Anarchy addresses the falsehood of the state, and therefore causes the veil to dissolve.
Post a Comment