Anarchy Rocks:
The Pitch for Pacifist Anarchy
By Tom Fairbank
Hi, I'm Tom and I'm a Pacifist Anarchist. This means I don't believe in violence or Government. I think most people are familiar with pacifism, so I won't discuss that, but I think Anarchy gets a bad name so allow me to explain.
There are six inherent traits to Government:
1. Inefficient. If the government wants to get something done, typically they will do so with red tape and overpaid officials. It is cheaper and more efficient to have services provided individuals instead of Governments.
2. Slow. If a change needs to be made it must be reviewed by committees, votes must be taken, persuasion and argument by a select few follow. Going slow can sometimes be nice for community building, but often it can be frustrating.
3. Brutal. In the end all Government is violence. If someone does not comply with Government's demands then the 'force of law' comes in. This is someone losing their house from a sheriff, being put in prison or even killed.
4. Inflexible. Each situation is unique, laws can specify the details, but then laws are long and complicated (remember Inefficient and Slow?). Government has no effective way to adapt to new situations.
5. Unsatisfying. I have not enjoyed paying taxes. Maybe you have. But I have found it more enjoyable to donate to various organizations and individuals in need instead of dealing with the middle man of Government. Giving directly allows freedom. And freedom rocks, I love the feeling. Giving is no longer a chore, it becomes a joy.
6. Divisive. Government divides people into various political parties, instead of encouraging those of a different view to work together. If a vote is 49% to 51%, the 49% is ignored and will have to wait until the next election for their opinion to implemented, maybe longer. What if the 49% has the better idea? What if both ideas are wrong?
But who will pave our roads, educate our youth, punish the criminal or help the poor? We will. Having our elders gather to make decisions on public transportation, or schools is a great idea. Giving all those in a community a voice in this process is a reasonable. My criticism is not against order or hierarchy, like some Anarchists, but against violence. So let us have taxes as optional and remove the 'force of law'.
But what if people don't comply? What about the serial killer? The terrorist? The rich jerk who doesn't want to contribute to the community's education fund? Forgive them, explain your point of view and let us forge a new world where all are included. Let us mend the broken bridges and heal the wounds of the past.
Am I naïve? Maybe, but I'd rather die a believer than live as a doubter. Remember I am a pacifist and I believe that all, the ugly, the mean, the ignorant, and the cruel are children of God. I wish to be a forgiver and Osama Bin Laden gave me that opportunity. I believe there is wisdom in loving one's enemies, a wisdom that is often forgotten are rarely encouraged by the currant culture of society. Let the Government disarm itself and free its citizens.
Talk to him about it
In Response
By Jeff Ginger
So I couldn't let this one go unanswered for very long. I'll open by saying that Tom is one of the most inovative and unusual thinkers I've ever met. Though he has a lot of conservative Christian ideals flowing through his blood, he still manages to maintain an understanding of social liberty. He's not only unafraid of change, but makes it happen, often swiftly and abruptly.
So first and foremost, we have this concept of pacifism. Nice idea, but I don't buy it. My perspective is that I value human life, not inaction or a lack of violence. So while I don't support things like the war on Iraq, I would support a scenario like the following (yes Tom you've heard this one before):
The last plane to go down on September 11th was originally destined for collision with the Pentagon. The passengers on the plane prevented this by rising up and overtaking the hijackers. It's highly likely they did this by an act of violence. Tom proposes that they should have spoken to the hijacker terrorists, and tried to love them. While this tactic might work over a period of time, I sincerely doubt it would have in these circumstances. They wouldn't have listened to passengers begging them to stop, and attempting to say, give them a hug, would have resulted in getting stabbed. No, I wouldn't have been talking to them. I'd have been one of the guys wrestling them to the ground and getting knifed for it. By preventing the hijackers from crashing the plane into a building with use of violence, lives were saved. Bottom line.
So Tom, is your highest priority valuing human life, or is it being non-violent?
I was once told a story about a young man that was saved from falling off a train and dying. Years later the young man turned out to be Hitler, and well, look what he did. I still don't think this means we should not save life. In my opinion the cause is just and intentions sincere.
I do recognize that violence and saving life is almost never as clear-cut as my aforementioned scenario. I still think it's key struggle to develop and understanding of when and how violence must be used, always keeping in mind the ultimate goal of saving life.
--
And on to the anarchy proposal. This one is considerably harder to argue with Tom on, because we have no examples of anarchy to point to. But this is part of my argument. I'll go point by point and then address it as a whole.
1) Inefficient. Few arguments here in regards to most of the current governmental implementations around the world. I definitely agree that there is always room for improvement. But part of the idea of a government is that it's a large institution that can help many people. Without the resources and coverage of a larger authority or collective there's no way to do the things that the government does in the first place. Tell me Tom, which is more inefficient - a hospital full of people working together with resources, or individuals trying to perform medical operations on their own without help of facilities or resources?
2) Slow. Again, you're largely right. Government takes a long time to process things. But again we relate to the people networking I illustrated above. While getting the individual form or bill filled out is slow, the ability to actually implement something on such a large scale is only made possible through government. So I see it largely as an option of slow, or not at all. I'll take slow, even if it could use improvement.
3) Brutal. You're very one sided my friend. A government is just as capable of being compassionate and helpful as it is violent or brutal. Government is made up of people that are comprised by a whole spectrum of feelings and emotions and perspectives.
4) Inflexible. Right, it's a template, or a broad system designed to cover all. Are stairs custom build for people of different heights and stepping comforts? Nah, to do that would be impossible. I'd say taking the time to address each individual scenario is slower than broad governmental laws and archetypes. The system is built to allow for exceptions, too.
5) Unsatisfying. Take a step outwards. Giving for you and for me is a joy, yes. Some people hate it. I've met people that don't like helping others. It occurred to me the other day when Mitterer said he didn't follow my assumption that the best things to do in life are create things and help people. He doesn't live like that, or believe in that. So with needs, like say, paving streets, providing protection, whatever governmental service you pick, there will always be those who don't wish to contribute to those. The people of a community might need a fire department. But people outside of that community won't care to help them. People are often times selfish, and short sighted. They often don't understand what it's like to be in another person's shoes.
Everyone hates taxes. I'm sick of this mentality. I'm probably the only person on the freaking planet that accepts them. I understand that my money, for the most part, is going to a just cause that I believe in. If I don't like all that it's going to, I can get off my ass, get involved in government, and change where it goes.
I think the root of the issue is that people hate taxes because they love money. Our society is wrapped up in this huge consumerism concept where everyone must spend more money and have nicer things. Hell I'm caught into it with computers, for sure. For some reason people have making more money their goal in life. It's not mine. Sure you need money, or power, or whatever, but for me it's not my central point of working and living. Is my way the right one? I can only say that it is for me. But it explains why taxes don't really bug me.
6) Divisive. I agree a bi-partisan system isn't a happy idea. Your example reeks of the last election. The ideal president or winner would take into account that 49% and do their best to work with and compromise with them. Unfortunately that Bush asshole up at the top has built his reputation on ignoring others and being a hardliner conservative who doesn't give in. This is the place where I think Tom and I could probably synthesize the most - forming a governmental system that isn't so polar and allows for more flexibility and sectioning, but without too much bulk that would cause slow-down or inefficiency.
--
"But who will pave our roads, educate our youth, punish the criminal or help the poor? We will."
How then, is this any different than the government? You say this as if our government wasn't made up of us.
"Having our elders gather to make decisions on public transportation, or schools is a great idea."
We let the elderly vote on our school referendum around here and look what happened! No AP classes, no more sports, one less period per day. Letting the elderly run the show is a TERRIBLE idea. They should have a voice, just like everyone else. Should we let the 5 year old make decisions for the government? No! I like the current system of letting people age 18 and up make the impacts. If we let only one section of the population be in charge, be they white, old, male, or whatever, we will get a very bais and unfair form of government and rule making. Perspectives vary by person. Just because a person has more experience in life doesn't mean they have the best perspective.
"Giving all those in a community a voice in this process is a reasonable. My criticism is not against order or hierarchy, like some Anarchists, but against violence. So let us have taxes as optional and remove the 'force of law'."
Okay. So this isn't nearly as potent as anarchy. Anarchy, to my understanding, means no governmental order. Your system would have governmental order. Perhaps this is all about word usage and semantic differences.
So my question to the first proposal, taxes, is this. In a world and country so obsessed with money and consumerism without much of any focus spent on helping people, how can we expect people's charity and donation to fuel what our taxes do? I think if we're going to eliminate taxes we need a MASSIVE change in societal thinking. And if you've got a good way to do this, I'm all about helping this social cause.
"But what if people don't comply? What about the serial killer? The terrorist? The rich jerk who doesn't want to contribute to the community's education fund? Forgive them, explain your point of view and let us forge a new world where all are included. Let us mend the broken bridges and heal the wounds of the past."
We've got a bit of a problem here. You individually don't believe in violence. Many people do. So not only are you going to get people who don't comply, but you're gonna quickly get a band of assholes who will take over with violence. Will Morton, a political science major friend of mine said that Anarchy is the best foundation for dictatorship or fascism. Without a fair law and government system, some jerk or group of jerks will take over with force.
So forgiving people is key, yes. Positively encouraging them is key, yes. But in order to effectively remedy social problems you need to identify them and establish the cause - and yes that means placing blame. That means sometimes we'll have to use violence to disarm the person on PCP with an assault rifle looking to gun down kids in his high school. (How'd he get that assault rifle Bush, you POS... fucking NRA...) I simply think that there are times and situations where talking and forgiving won't work.
"Am I naïve? Maybe, but I'd rather die a believer than live as a doubter. Remember I am a pacifist and I believe that all, the ugly, the mean, the ignorant, and the cruel are children of God. I wish to be a forgiver and Osama Bin Laden gave me that opportunity. I believe there is wisdom in loving one's enemies, a wisdom that is often forgotten are rarely encouraged by the currant culture of society. Let the Government disarm itself and free its citizens."
If taken out of context that statement would be such a beautiful elegant dance of words. By all means, I agree, let us work to start reducing the amount of violence our government is oriented towards. We can start with unnecessary parts of the military. And if you had said free its citizens years ago I would have argued that we largely are free. Unfortunately sociology and shit like the patriot act have changed much of my perspective. Without a doubt, we should work towards that end. Just lets do it in a way that's possible, and values human life.
Eagerly awaiting responses...
Tom Fairbank pitches back
Hope this answers some of your questions Jeff, thanks for your flattering description of me as well as your curiosity.
1.Inefficient - "Tell me Tom, which is more inefficient - a hospital full of people working together with resources, or individuals trying to perform medical operations on their own without help of facilities or resources?"
Hospitals are non-governmental. They are efficient, yet they do so without government regulation but regulation by individual citizens. I am not against organization, but against Government or laws backed by violence.
2. Slow. Nice response but I'm still impatient. I wish to replace many stop signs with yield signs, but I have to take that up with many local governments and that takes time, why not simply talk to my neighbors and do it myself? I can leave my phone number on the sign so if people disagree with the decision I can remove it. Still have stop signs, but one can make changes faster without government.
3. Brutal. I am fine renaming this criticism 'violent', because my belief was that all Government is violence and all violence is brutal, but for to be clear I will say violent from now on.
However, I believe that any 'compassionate' organization which taxes the rich to benefit the poor is not compassionate to all. If I had an organization, let us call it a 'gang', that would evict people from their homes unless they gave us money so we could be employed as tax collectors and then give the rest of the money to starving children in Africa would you call us loving and compassionate? Robin Hood may have loved the poor, but he sure did not care much for the rich. Both Robin Hood and Socialistic Governments are violent to the rich. I would prefer persuasion and charity to violence.
4. Inflexible. Okay, maybe this is going over the top and their will always be some roughness along the edges in any system. But the fact that government will do such things as arrest a boy for breaking and entering and petty theft when he walked into a seemingly abandoned shed and found some kittens disgusts me. My mom defended the young boy in this case; the boy was very apologetic and said he would give the kittens back. The owner did not want the kittens and said they boy could have them. But the prosecutors said they boy broke the law and must be punished. This is what I mean by inflexible. A government that insists on its laws being followed is no government I can support.
5. Unsatisfying. I do not believe all people are unselfish. I believe that they will find more enjoyment out of voluntarily giving to people than being forced to do so under the threat of violence. Maybe some will give and maybe some won't. This is secondary. What is essential is that voluntary donations are more satisfying than involuntary taxes.
Also, Glen Ellyn currently has a volunteer fire department. Nice try but find a new example that people 'will not agree to'. You'd be surprised to find how common pacifist anarchy (people creating order without the threat of violence) is in the world. I would like to see more volunteer fire departments, police forces and schools. Volunteer fire fighters are not government employees. This is the system I want. No law, no taxes, no violence
Let me emphize that we do not control the government. They are not 'my' missiles falling on Iraq . If it was up to 'me' no missiles would ever be used ever again. Yet all 'I' can decide is what missiles 'I' fire, not what some soldier in Iraq will fire. So let us return power from those who decided to kill thousands of Iraq civilians and give it to the all. Through my taxes, which were backed by violence, I contribute to this war yet if any do not wish to see their money go to the military they must either be impoverished or a criminal.
"So my question to the first proposal, taxes, is this. In a world and country so obsessed with money and consumerism without much of any focus spent on helping people, how can we expect people's charity and donation to fuel what our taxes do? I think if we're going to eliminate taxes we need a MASSIVE change in societal thinking. And if you've got a good way to do this, I'm all about helping this social cause."
I have the only way to do this. Culture is not changed by acting as a more intense version of the undesired culture. Feminism would not have come about if sympathetic men acted more rude and an arrogant toward women. It came about because men were kind and treated women as equals. Studies have shown that if teachers threat students as geniuses they will become geniuses and if they treat them like idiots they become idiots. So let us treat those in our community like angles, as if they were the most generous, loving people who had ever existed. Then, according to the research, they will be more likely to act that way. Society follows the roles given to it. Society follows the examples that are set. Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you wish people to be less materialistic, than do so yourself. Lower taxes and care not for money, you'll be surprised how quick the world will follow you.
"Will Morton claims anarchy is fertile ground for dictatorships"
Great argument. But in the age of the peaceful revolutions that have happened in South Africa , India , the Philippines , three former Soviet countries, and the USSR can we say that dictatorships are permanent or that peace cannot move mountains? As those who rebelled against the Philippines dictator F. Marcos said, "We weren't trying to bring you to your knees, just to your senses." In reality anarchy may allow individuals to rise to power because of their willingness to kill. But if we are willing to love what can stop us?
You cannot change a man unless you first see him as that which he is not. The same is true of society. Let us see it as the best it can be and let us act as it is the best. If people are told they are evil and materialistic don't be surprised if they act materialistic. But if people are told they are filled with a heavily spark of the divine do not be surprised if they sell their possessions and give them to the poor, resist evil with love and re-create the world with peace and healing. You are what you are labeled. Its time we changed our labels of people and with changed labels comes a changed government. A peaceful government filled of advisors and mediators, not power-hungry and violent men and women. I believe heaven is pacifist anarchy, let us create earth as it is in heaven.
By Jeff Ginger
Okay, so instead of going point by point, I'll try to address things a little more broadly. First, however, I do have to talk about the stop-sign example.
More than just you and your neighbors use that stop sign. You have to consider the traffic that goes through that's not local. What if you lived in Buffalo Grove - and business commuters came by every morning who lived many miles away? Furthermore, say you leave your contact information on the new sign - it'll be a little late to contact you after a small child gets hit because a non-local flies through a yield sign too quickly. Do you want to take that responsibility for the small child? And even if you're willing to, I don't think most people would be, nor would I expect them to be. Governments allow for a larger responsible agent - taking the pressure off of individuals and making things like stop-signs possible.
I really don't buy this 'taxes are violent' thing. Ultimately yes, there could be forceful repercussions for people who aren't willing to give back to the country they live in. If you, or they don't want to live in this system, they can move to another country - try on the 3rd world country dictatorships for size Tom, see if you like their government systems better - I think you'll find true violence there. I also think it's completely unplausable and impossible to simply persuade all people. This breaks down to that fundamental difference in our understandings of the world we were talking about recently - I don't believe people are root are all the same. I don't think everyone can be persuaded to believe the same way I do. I don't even want them to.
"A government that insists on its laws being followed is no government I can support. "
A government that doesn't insist on laws being followed doesn't have laws at all - it's not even a governing authority. I can't see a system with a bunch of suggestions as a working system. Yes I think we need to develop rules and form societal consensuses.
You picked the one slightly specific part of my example and attacked it with a very specific and limited example to the contrary. Yes, Glen Ellyn has a functioning volunteer fire department. Yes you can find institutions like that. But you won't find volunteer suage and waste workers, or enough volunteer police in extrordinarily dangerous environments. Simply put -
Look at the real point here - not everyone cares about everyone else and therefore will not be willing to help everyone else. In fact I think so few people are benevolent enough to have a global compassion oriented attitude that you could never form a working governmental system made up of charity and volunteers on a large national scale.
I'm not saying the government does everything right, or uses all of its money correctly. Currently I actually think our less than friendly Bush administration is doing a poor job at this. But I still think that there's hope in our system - I still think there are ways to resolve the faults and make it work better.
Side note - you say you don't judge - but aren't you judging violence and power and money obsession to be incorrect ways of life?
I gotta pull this one:
"I have the only way to do this. Culture is not changed by acting as a more intense version of the undesired culture. Feminism would not have come about if sympathetic men acted more rude and an arrogant toward women. It came about because men were kind and treated women as equals."
Okay, your first sentense if arrogant and short sighted - your method and way is not the only one and is not for-sure the best for everyone. Learn to have doubt and realize you're human like the rest of us. And you are a more intense version of the undesired culture, though. I think many of the ideas, thoughts, and passions you yourself propose are both intense, and not desired by the majority. Having no government, being a vegetarian/vegan/special eater, picthing for a life outlook with no right and wrong - all of that is rejected and undesired by the majority of people. Oh and now feminism only exists because men say it can. Bull-fucking-shit.
I do agree completely that we can influence how and what people believe with labels - like your genius example. And I agree we can provoke change by living it through ourselves. That's why I try to stress not worrying about how much a money somebody's dad makes or paying attention to the death news or headlines about celebrities in scandals. That's the system I choose to use too - just sometimes living what you believe isn't enough. You have to stand up for it too. Not just for yourself, but for others too. I care to defend others too - if I believe in equality between men and women you better bet I'm going to step up and defend them both where needed. I'm not just going to sit and believe and live with equality integrated in just my own life. I'm going to do my best to work it into the lives of others too. No I don't plan to do that with violence.
Sometimes, though, like say in the circumstance of defending life, I think you have to. Or at least I believe you have to.
On another side note, I think you and I have different perspectives on examples. In this context I feel we're in a hypothetical philosophical structure. Therefore I enjoy general examples more than specific historical ones. Because specific historical ones are constrained to our understanding of the events, and also gives way to making the history jock or better educated individual to looking right. I'm sure you could pick out numerous historical examples both in support and against whatever topic you wanted - it's all about how and where you look and what you choose to say. Lets take it a step higher than that and look at it from the broad angle.
I'm not going to delve into the Biblical Heaven contemplations... mainly because I'm apathetic to it - and don't think anyone can reasonably know what the afterlife is like.
If you tell me I'm filled with the heavenly spark of the devine or the light of Jesus or whatever, I'm only going to feel more alienated from you. I do agree, though, that we can work to make this whole system less about power and money. We can start by stressing what we believe to be the right (or most preffered or whatever you say) outlooks in our own lives. I just know going into it that my outlook will sometimes conflict with others, and that there's going to have to be a resolution of that, one way or another. My solution would be without violence... but their's might not be. And so it goes.
I think our governmental system needs help, and needs to change, but still has hope. I also believe that the laws and sometimes violent responses are neccesary, and that there's not going to be any good way to resolve conflict sometimes - at least not one that the majority will believe in. If we can change that over time, then by all means. But lets take steps towards that end, not try to start there. We can start with abolishing or phaseing out that death penalty thing...
By Tom Fairbank
Thanks for your interest Jeff! Always good to hear your views, you are thoughtful and have a very unique perspective.
You said many things in that last post, but I think two major issues are key.
First, let me confess my error in rhetoric. You are right that most of Government is non-violent. However, it does use coercion, or the threat of violence. Thanks Pat Ryan for pointing this out to me. Yet, I do not believe violence or coercion is useful for promoting love and self-respect among those who disagree. Nor does it encourage personal responsibility but encourages us to blame others for the problems of the world. I believe in appealing to the conciseness of mankind instead of to one's self-interest.
This leads us to the second point, you are argue that people do not currently agree with me, while I argue that it is possible that one day they may. I believe human thought is dynamic and always in a state of flux, yet even in this state of continual change it is possible for growth in one direction. That could be a direction of restraint on the use of force. Maybe it could start with ending the death penalty, then prison reform, then reducing war, and so forth till a pacifist anarchy is achieved. I do not claim that people act in a socially responsibly way, even I fall short of this, but I believe by taking personal responsibility, instead of leaving the solving of problems to Government, then the human race can grow even faster into mature people who consider the consequences of their actions.
|
