Over at The Smallest Minority, Kevin posts the following QoD:
Man is a social animal and will always have to live within a social structure, particularly once they get over the tribal limit. That social structure will consume a certain amount of time and effort and resources. It is no different than the necessity to devote time and effort and resources to securing food, water, and shelter. However much we'd rather avoid it, that's no argument against working to put roofs over our heads. This is our nature, this is our environment, this is what we have to do to live and thrive.
This offends anarcho-libertarians in the same way that human self-interest offends communists. Tough shit. Both philosophies are based on false premises and false views of human nature. I no more feel the need to justify "robbery" to an anarcho-libertarian than I feel the need to justify private property to a commie, or agriculture to a breatharian. When you choose to fight nature, nature's gonna' win.
-- ernunnos
To which I replied with the following enlightened koan:
I see he's trying to avoid false dichotomies, which is always a good thing to do. Don't know if he's quite there yet, though.Heh...I expect I'm now being shredded in comments. I'll check back later.
Man is a social creature, it's true. Societies do require shared resources. It doesn't have to be some theoretical tribal limit: Any society larger than one requires shared resources. Anyone unwilling to do his part in a society becomes a parasite and deserves to be driven out of it. No disagreement there.
But what if he never agreed to join this "society" in the first place? Then the question is, does that "sharing" have to take the form of taxes, extracted at the barrel of a gun? Because that's not sharing, that's robbery.
I'm not an "anarcho-libertarian." I've really no idea what that is; it sounds like "Chevy-Ford" to me. I can get along with libertarians, but I'm - to the extent any label fits - an anarchist. But here's a dirty little secret. I've never met an anarchist, any more than any libertarian, who really had a workable plan for the world. And if I met that person I'd probably reject him, because I'm really sick and tired of people who have plans for the world. Aren't you?
The only person I can justly rule is myself. I can be led, but it will be by leaders of my choosing. The only society I'm busy reforming is the one inside my own head. The only society I'm interested in pleasing is the small group that I voluntarily joined, and with whom I do share my resources - willingly. How do you scale that up to "human society?" Hell, I don't know. Probably you can't. "Society" is none of my business. I wish to hell it would stop making me its business.
4 comments:
Bravo, Joel. :^)
--Lightning
Well said.
What's wrong with a society based on my right to be left the hell alone?
It seems like anyone interested in defining society has an ulterior motive of bothering me in one way or another.
Bah, says I. Bah. The whole 'argument' against your post boils down to 'Love it or leave it!' once the distraction of linked cartoons and attempts to sound scholarly are subtracted.
To which I reply, as I always have:
"Make me."
It is somewhat humorous that people who claim to be libertarians and 'real conservatives' and etc. end up defining society the same way the liberals they hate so much define it.
Two things:
"I was born here. The other 299,999,999 of y'all can leave if you don't like it."
and
"They only have the power you give them: What if they gave a government and nobody came?"
Post a Comment