Two great anarchist quotes from Miller’s Crossing:
It’s getting so a businessman can’t expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can’t trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good return, you gotta go betting on chance – and then you’re back with anarchy, right back in the jungle.
Which is incidentally a perfect illustration of why big business has never been a fan of the free market.
You don’t hold elected office in this town. You run it because people think you do. They stop thinking it, you stop running it.
The point applies to elected officials too, of course.
I haven’t seen this movie, but all the Coen Brothers’ movies I’ve seen seem to rely on themes of nihilism, anarchism, and hopelessness. In a way, the Coens can be described as the anti-Rand.
I’m not sure that applies to, say, Fargo. In that movie, the villains are all hopeless, worthless screwups but the protagonist is a cop who, in her folksy way, represents the pure angelic embodiment of Reason and Justice — and she wins. (I’d say she’s a cop that even an anarchist has to kinda like.)
Really? I thought those themes apply to Fargo equally well. I thought the cop represented folksy “virtue” and stumbled upon success. She wins in the same way Lebowski “wins.” “Shit just happens” seems to be the primary Coen Brothers’ theme. Success is downplayed. Failure is emphasized.
I didn’t think she stumbled that much (no more than in detective stories generally); she was constantly picking up on clues that everyone else ignored.
It would be a shame if she wanted a sandwhich from Red and Black Cafe…
I don’t think they have any objection to serving nonexistent police officers.
It’s hard to see how existence is a relevant predicate when the Cafe’s policy covers subjects irrespective of their character.
Character isn’t the issue.
A member of the KKK might well be a good person, on balance. Only God knows men’s hearts (even if God doesn’t exist). But if he goes swaggering, heavily armed and in full gang colors, into a cafe owned and run by a Black family, they’d be justifiably nervous. And would be rationally and morally justified in throwing him out, even if he’s a “good person” (and he may well be, on balance), even if they know he’s “really a good person” (and there’s no reason to think they do).
Rival conscript armies may well be composed of largely decent folks, at least for the short time before war has its way with their humanity. But they’re still justified in seeing and treating each other as enemies.
Oy. Time to submit this issue to praxeology and then psychology.
Temporarily I’ll grant that law enforcement officers are gang members — that they impose their own rules on people outside their jurisdiction. Praxeologically, this state of affairs is war.
On the other hand, KKK members aren’t merely imposing rules on people who have the natural right to not be ruled. KKK members are explicitly dehumanizing specific groups. Praxeologically, this state of affairs is an autistic exchange.
As a Jew and a law-breaker, I’ve seen and felt the difference. An officer may make you feel insignificant. A KKK member may make you feel like an insect.
Maybe some officers play the KKK language-game. But like you say, it’s what the costumes explicitly represent. And believe me if you don’t have the relevant experience, you’d rather be in a state of war than on the receiving end of an autistic exchange.
Everyone alive has probably been on the receiving end of an “autistic exchange” at some point, and this includes myself. I’m still not particularly eager to go to war, which would consist largely of people trying to make autistic exchanges with me via the medium of high explosives.
I really think you missed my point, which was to get past the silly and irrelevant question of whether an individual cop or Klansman or enemy conscript is really a good person, deep down (and they might well be; unlike Roderick and others around these parts, my internet psychic powers aren’t developed enough to see the True Secret Beliefs that people hide beneath their stated beliefs that aren’t any more popular than their supposed secret beliefs, and anyway there’s more to a person than how he views lawbreakers or Black people or conscripts in the opposing army). The important question is whether anarchists (or Black people or conscripts) are being unreasonable or doing something immoral in taking precautions against armed agents of hostile factions; I say no, they aren’t, and that furthermore the answer does not depend on the character of the individual agent in question, because even “good” people will do awful things to people they see as enemies or social inferiors.
Fine. You’re still wrong. Imposing rules does not necessarily entail people turning into property. You’re guilty of epistemic closure.
“autistic exchange”…interesting phrase. Since there’s multiple levels of autistic behavior, what is it you’re particularly referring to?
Rothbard used it to describe Crusoe acting alone on his island. So when you put on your shoes, for instance, you’re engaged in an autistic exchange — the only interaction is between you and the environment.
I think it’s useful to think of dehumanization as autistic exchange between people — one person plays the role of subject, the other plays object; one plays agent, the other plays environment.
And I think this concept is further useful in distinguishing between war and domination. War is an intimate involvement with another person. Domination rejects the other’s personhood.
Red and Black Cafe supporters may object: “So why should we allow warriors from the other side on our property?”—Well, praxeologically, it’s not war unless the officer is imposing rules on the Cafe patrons that are inconsistent with their natural rights. Until and unless those impositions are present, the state of affairs is a free exchange.
But when you’re dealing with a KKK member walking into a predominantly African American store, the state of affairs changes right off the bat. Since KKK members explicitly believe African Americans are subhuman, their presence signifies rivalrous realities.
The police officer does not even implicitly claim property rights over the owners of the Cafe. Yet, the KKK member explicitly — through his form of “life” — claims property rights over the owners of the predominantly African American store.
Well, if you look at KKK websites, they mostly claim to be separatists rather than supremacists, and disclaim any tendency to regard nonwhites as subhuman. I think it’s pretty likely that most of them are lying, but I have no trouble believing that some confused kid could end up in the KKK without regarding nonwhites as subhuman but simply buying into the propaganda that the white race is under attack, blah blah blah. The distance between cops and KKK doesn’t seem so huge to me.
But their pretense for acting the way they do is irrelevant, praxeologically.
Special pleading. One who really is a white separatist who doesn’t see nonwhites as subhuman, rather than a white supremecist, just does not “explicitly believe that African Americans are subhuman”, however otherwise objectionable his beliefs may be.
Praxeology abstracts from psychological concretes. But it does not invalidate them, especially when they’re explicitly under discussion. You have a knack for applying nifty technical-sounding distinctions where they don’t matter.
You think the KKK is run by “white separatist[s]?” Nothing to do with “white supremacists?”
Praxeology abstracts from psychological concretes. But it does not invalidate them, especially when they’re explicitly under discussion. You have a knack for applying nifty technical-sounding distinctions where they don’t matter.
Oy. Praxeology does not “abstract from psychological concretes.” Praxeology is anti-psychologistic. And yes, I do use technical jargon, but at least I apply it correctly. You, on the other hand…
MBH:
Really? Last I checked, police officers both claimed and actively practiced a prerogative to force their way into Anarchist spaces (breaking down doors, storming, etc. if necessary), rifling through and confiscating our shit, and hauling people out of the place in chains. You may be aware that 8 Anarchists in the Twin Cities are, still, facing an extended court trial and possibly years in prison based on exactly this pattern of police invasion and occupation. This is an actual widespread problem for real people in the real world, whereas the Klan busting into black-owned stores for purposes of abduction, vandalism or petty intimidation is (now-a-days) mainly a hypothetical, and where it does happen, is hardly ever carried out with the degree of violence or utter impunity that police “raids” routinely are.
In point of fact, while we’re here, it should be noted that, while Klan violence and harassment does certainly still exist, the average black American is also by far more likely to be harassed or attacked by uniformed police officers now-a-days than they are to be harassed or attacked by robed Klansmen. (For reasons which have, primarily, to do with dehumanizing and regimenting racially and socioeconomically-selected victims, in the interest of upholding police authority and the social control of the ruling class.)
I’d call your attempted comparative analysis insane; but “insane” would suggest the conclusion is arbitrary, whereas what you’re saying is actually the exact opposite of the real-world situation.
[W]hat you’re saying is actually the exact opposite of the real-world situation.
Ugh. I’m granting that — praxeologically — law-enforcement officers are engaged in war against you. But confiscation of property is an incidental means to their end. Their end is to impose their rules on you — not to take your shit.
KKK members’ end is domination. Turning certain people into property is constitutive of their end. Their modus operandi is dehumanization. It’s not a mere byproduct of their actions (as it often is with law-enforcement officers).
Do KKK members act on their ends in public anymore? No. Does that mean they’re gone? Does that mean their modus operandi is inactive? Does that mean that law-enforcement officers are somehow worse? Have the venomous language-games employing “nigger” and “kike” ended?
You’re obviously welcome to suggest the answers are yes. But you’ll understand why I think that’s… how to put it… arational.
Just out of curiosity, have any white supremacists ever shown up to your meetings? Maybe they sometimes express appreciation for the work you do?
Imposing one’s rules on somebody just is making them into one’s property. Or at the very least, raiding them occasionally (raiders and pirates I guess would be usufruct cops).
Imposing one’s rules on somebody just is making them into one’s property.
“Green means go and red means stop” doesn’t exactly turn you into a thing.
Dragging someone from the back of a car… well, do you really want to argue that these are the same thing? You might want to let this one go.
MBH,
Seriously, have you ever even paid attention to how cops talk about, and rationalize their treatment of lawbreakers, drug-users, anarchists, and other categories of “those people”?
Yes.
Great, so you know that part of what defines them as a self-conscious group is the explicit belief that all of the above are, in fact, subhuman.
No. Most cops get their kicks from the sense of authority. If they believed those groups were subhuman, then they would be content to tell dogs what to do. Bossing around other humans is essential to that particular sense of authority.
“War is an intimate involvement with another person.”
Dude. Just, what the fuck.
I know emotional intelligence is in short supply, but let’s think about it. What’s more intimate: conflict or indifference?
Conflict versus indifference? There’s at least one equivocation hidden in that there false dichotomy.
Domination rarely involves “indifference” of any sort that doesn’t apply equally to war.
Hell, domination is the whole reason for any and every war that isn’t aimed at total extermination.
Conflict versus indifference? There’s at least one equivocation hidden in that there false dichotomy.
There isn’t a dichotomy between conflict and indifference? They’re just two sides of the same coin? Tell me how that goes…
JOR,
Since that’s just what I said too, a few lines earlier, I’m not sure why you name me as though I were disagreeing with you on that point.
MBH,
Property is the right of use and disposal. If A claims the right to control B’s peaceful actions, how is A not claiming partial ownership over B?
Do you think the police aren’t run by anti-anarchists?
Of course the KKK is run by white supremacists. The question is whether someone who wasn’t a white supremacist could end up in the KKK. Given that the KKK’s propaganda isn’t always explicitly white supremacist, I think the answer is yes. I would still see nothing wrong with barring such a KKK member from a black business.
How is its being anti-psychologistic not a matter of its abstracting from psychological concretes? I would have thought that’s just what its anti-psychologism consists in. What am I missing?
If A claims the right to control B’s peaceful actions, how is A not claiming partial ownership over B?
It’s not necessarily a matter of control. In some instances A is facilitating B’s peaceful actions.
The question is whether someone who wasn’t a white supremacist could end up in the KKK. Given that the KKK’s propaganda isn’t always explicitly white supremacist, I think the answer is yes.
Agreed.
I would still see nothing wrong with barring such a KKK member from a black business.
Me either. But the reasons that would be OK in this instance wouldn’t hold in the anarchist/police instance. KKK members aim to dehumanize African Americans. Police officers may incidentally dehumanize anarchists.
How is its being anti-psychologistic not a matter of its abstracting from psychological concretes?
If “psychological concretes” means “preferences” or “actions” then OK. But is that what it means? Wouldn’t the concrete character make it non-psychologistic?
I said, “In some instances A is facilitating B’s peaceful actions.” Let me clarify. “Red means stop; green means go” is more of a facilitation than a control.
Since the actual real-world police do not confine themselves to such facilitating, how is this relevant?
If I break into your house and start putting up red and green stoplights that tell you when you can walk from one room to another, that’s control. Calling it mere facilitation presupposes that the police already have legitimate jurisdiction over your house.
But a) you’ve just granted a few lines earlier that not all KKK members necessarily aim to dehumanise African Americans. So what does your claim mean here?
b) If someone is at war with me, that seems like a good enough reason to bar them from my establishment, whether or not they seek to dehumanise me or are instead motivated by some misguided paternalistic impulse.
I’m not sure what you mean.
If I break into your house and start putting up red and green stoplights that tell you when you can walk from one room to another, that’s control.
Yes. But not in the case of common property. In those instances it makes sense to avoid polycentric guidelines. In those instances it makes sense to follow a monopolized set of standards. And it also makes sense to protect against encroachments from private property into common property.
Do police often overreach that duty? No question. But that doesn’t change their purpose.
But a) you’ve just granted a few lines earlier that not all KKK members necessarily aim to dehumanise African Americans. So what does your claim mean here?
The organization’s purpose is to dehumanize (or very charitably: to stake a higher claim on property than the Other), whether every member agrees or not. And in the context of a KKK member walking into an African American business, that is what their costume would represent.
b) If someone is at war with me, that seems like a good enough reason to bar them from my establishment, whether or not they seek to dehumanise me or are instead motivated by some misguided paternalistic impulse.
I said I would temporarily grant that the state of affair is war. I actually think that’s a misperception. If the duty of police officers is to facilitate common property, while protecting that property from encroachment by private property, then their purpose is in accord with natural law. The way individual officers may interpret that purpose — along with the presence of misguided policy — can easily result in war-like behavior. But, again, that doesn’t change their purpose.
Just because some Freemasons drink, drive, and are occasionally guilty of manslaughter, doesn’t mean that non-masonic car owners are in a war with them.
I’m not sure what you mean.
What is a “psychological concrete?”
Which is not the same thing as government property — or government-claimed property.
With actual, real-world common property, norms emerge from the actual users, not from the enforcement arm of the state.
If a bunch of villagers had a common green where they al grazes their cattle, and the Mafia came along and started enforcing rules for them, that would be analogous.
Police officers — pretty much all of them, I’d say — take as their task, and are widely regarded as having as their task, the enforcement of all the state’s laws within its entire asserted territorial range of jurisdiction, which includes public and private property. If you’re smoking pot in your own basement, the fact that you’re on private property isn’t going to stop them — and that’s not an idiosyncratic interpretation by a handful of officers either.
Now you might want to claim that under natural law their real duty is nevertheless something else. Okay, sure, but under natural law the proper function of the KKK would presumably be something else too.
Psychological details omitted in abstraction, I’d assume.
If a bunch of villagers had a common green where they al grazes their cattle, and the Mafia came along and started enforcing rules for them, that would be analogous.
Sure that’s one origin story. But it doesn’t necessarily go like that. Say the villagers freely decide they should adopt a set of rules and outsource their enforcement. In order to determine which rules are appropriate, they agree that the majority will rule the rules.
[Common property] is not the same thing as government property — or government-claimed property.
No. Not necessarily. But if the origin story goes like the one I just described, then the two would coincide.
[…U]nder natural law the proper function of the KKK would presumably be something else too.
How would the KKK exist under natural law? I would imagine that any organization, whose function overreaches their good draught, would be a non-starter. However, under natural law, the police would be confined to preventing such overreaches and so would not only exist but be essential.
If you’re smoking pot in your own basement, the fact that you’re on private property isn’t going to stop them — and that’s not an idiosyncratic interpretation by a handful of officers either.
Well, I agree. But I say that it’s a combination of purpose-misinterpretation and misguided policy. The latter is not the responsibility of law-enforcement.
I don’t think such a contract would be irrevocable. But in any case — yes, it could have gone like that, but it didn’t. In the real world that’s not where the police derive their (putative) authority. I can’t stroll off with your wallet on the grounds that, in an alternative reality, you might have freely given it to me.
I don’t think so.
a) The powers specific to a state or government go beyond what anyone can consent to — on inalienability grounds.
b) Even leaving that aside, an origin story isn’t enough, because even if the state had originated in the consent of our forebears, their consent can’t bind us, and it’s impossible to consent to an already-established state.
Well, it depends what we hold fixed. If we define the KKK specifically, as an organisation devoted to white supremacy, then there’s no virtuous version of it. If instead we define the KKK generically, as an organisation concerned with race relations, then there is a virtuous version of it.
And the same applies to the police. If we define the police specifically, as the enforcement arm of a state (understood as a coercive territorial monopoly), then there’s no virtuous version of it. If instead we define the police generically, as an institution devoted to securing compliance with law, then there is a virtuous version of it.
You’ve picked the specific definition of the KKK and the generic definition of the police. That trick makes it easy to justify a double standard, but its advantages are those of theft over honest toil.
I can’t stroll off with your wallet on the grounds that, in an alternative reality, you might have freely given it to me.
First, I don’t consider life under natural law to be an alternative reality. You’ve said before that it’s a “moral fact.” I think it just is the lifeworld. Second, in this world, natural law is much more a matter of necessity than freedom. If the SEC, or an analogous organization, rightfully determines that entirely free exchanges have overreached a good draught, then those engaged in the free exchanges should have their wallets strolled off with at the very least.
a) The powers specific to a state or government go beyond what anyone can consent to — on inalienability grounds.
Unless the government is run by natural law.
b) Even leaving that aside, an origin story isn’t enough, because even if the state had originated in the consent of our forebears, their consent can’t bind us, and it’s impossible to consent to an already-established state.
OK. But it is possible to consent to an already-established government if that government is run by natural law.
Well, it depends what we hold fixed. If we define the KKK specifically, as an organisation devoted to white supremacy, then there’s no virtuous version of it. If instead we define the KKK generically, as an organisation concerned with race relations, then there is a virtuous version of it.
Of course this assumes that “KKK… as an organization concerned with race relations” is conceivable. I think that’s about as conceivable as a group of bachelors who are concerned with their marriages.
And the same applies to the police.
No. Natural law-bound police officers is a conceivable notion. In fact, in agorist circles, I would imagine that they actually do exist.
You’ve picked the specific definition of the KKK and the generic definition of the police.
No. I’ve picked a conceivable definition of the KKK and a conceivable definition of the police. You’ve picked two conceivable definitions of the police, one conceivable definition of the KKK, and one inconceivable definition of the KKK.
That trick makes it easy to justify a double standard, but its advantages are those of theft over honest toil.
As a full-time janitor, I don’t think I lack an understanding of honest toil.
Neither do I. But you were talking about a scenario where everyone had consented to the government; that’s what I was calling an alternative reality.
How do state and government differ, by your definitions?
Assertions, but what’s the argument? Especially given that most left-anarchists are going to find your nicer definition of the police as inconceivable as my nicer definition of the KKK.
The kkk is, by their own nice definition, concerned with pluralism. Even on the level of generic universalism, they can only claim a form of relativism — race relations. That’s a grammatical misfire; it’s like trying to move a pawn horizontally or a bishop vertically.
The state is a paradigm. Government is the institutionalization of the paradigm.
How is that relativism? And if it were, how would that be relevant as an objection?
Can you explain that in non-Tamarian? Also, how can the institutionalisation of a paradigm be legitimate if the paradigm itself isn’t? (Since your reply to a critique of the state was to defend government “instead.”)
How is that relativism?
Is the kkk concerned with the race relations between any non-white group and any other non-white group?
And if it were, how would that be relevant as an objection?
If there is no conceivable generic universal definition of the kkk, and there is a conceivable generic universal definition of police, then I’m not using a double standard. My standard of conceivability is valid. An anarchist can conceive of a police organization that does not even implicitly challenge their good draught. An African American cannot conceive of a kkk organization that does not even implicitly challenge their good draught (especially in instances where that good draught is perceived by the kkk as mixing with white property).
Can you explain that in non-Tamarian?
Tamarian is the best I could do from a cell phone.
I equate the concept state with the concept paradigm. I’ve seen it put elsewhere that state is like a religion. All alone, it doesn’t necessarily compel anyone. But with churches everywhere and institutions run by the religious, the religion/paradigm compels. The institutions are the government. The state is the map the government follows.
Also, how can the institutionalisation of a paradigm be legitimate if the paradigm itself isn’t?
Can’t you lay out the boundaries of a legitimate map in illegitimate ways?
And can’t you lay out the boundaries of an illegitimate map in legitimate ways?
Isn’t that the form of an elucidation? Isn’t that what The Tractatus is? “Here is the logical positivist map of reality in its entirety and watch what it does to itself.” Isn’t that what The Colbert Report is? “Here is the right-wing mindset in its entirety and watch how absurd it really is.”
Suppose the answer is no. What does that have to do with relativism?
a) What is a “generic universal definition”?
b) A difference has to be relevant to defend against the charge of a double standard. What does having a “generic universal definition” or not having one have to do with the permissibility of banning a group’s members from a café?
c) It can’t just be a matter of having a function that involves drawing distinctions among people, because the police draw distinctions among people too (lawbreakers vs. non-lawbreakers, police vs. “civilians,” etc.).
You still haven’t explained why not. Your argument was just that the function of the “nice” analogue to the KKK is specifically concerned with relations between whites and nonwhites and so couldn’t be defined in a way that made no reference to a specific race. Okay, that’s true enough, but it would apply equally to, say, the NAACP; so making reference to a specific race is not per se racist. Your choice of a broad definition of the police and a narrow definition of the KKK still seems arbitrary.
But again, I also don’t see why any of that matters. Why should the permissibility of banning the KKK from a black store depend on whether there could be a good version of the KKK? Why doesn’t it depend on what the KKK is like in the real world, not what it might be like in an alternative reality? Seems to me this debate has gotten surreal.
Alright, if that’s how you want to use the terms, then how exactly is the state/government distinction supposed to show what you originally invoked it to show — namely that Charles’s arguments against the possibility of consenting to an existing state don’t apply to consenting to an existing government?
So are you saying that the government is a successful parody or deconstruction of the state? Because if not, then the way in which the government “institutionalises” the state and the way in which Colbert “institutionalises” O’Reilly seem to be merely homonymous.
(I’ll add that if a parody of the state involved actually killing, robbing, and assaulting peaceful people, then the fact that it was being done as a parody would be an inadequate defense.)
In any case — since your examples seem to keep floating off from any relevance to the context in which they were introduced — let’s recall that you originally introduced the state/government distinction by suggesting that a government could be legitimated by consent, as a reply to my claim that a state could not be legitimated by consent. That’s why I wondered how the institutionalisation of an illegitimate state could be legitimate. So I ask again: how is your distinction relevant to showing that the case against consensual legitimation of states doesn’t apply to consensual legitimation of governments? Or if it isn’t relevant, then why did you introduce it as though it were?
What does that have to do with relativism?
If “race relations” for the kkk were a universal, then it would cover relations between non-white groups and other non-white groups. Instead, “race relations” for the kkk is necessarily relative to white groups.
a) What is a “generic universal definition”?
I use “generic universal” in the cultural sense: as in, “pluralism with generic universalism.” My argument hinges on the kkk as a merely pluralistic culture with a disdain for the generic universal — for human rights in general. So the “generic universal definition” of an organization is their purpose filtered through something like Rawl’s veil of ignorance. My point is that the kkk couldn’t even begin to talk about how they would function through a veil of ignorance. Police officers, on the other hand, are supposed to function through a veil of ignorance (leaving aside how often they actually do).
b) A difference has to be relevant to defend against the charge of a double standard. What does having a “generic universal definition” or not having one have to do with the permissibility of banning a group’s members from a café?
A police officer is, in theory, bound by a veil of ignorance. A kkk member is, in theory, bound by a distinction between whites and others. Take the view from nowhere. A police officer could (and should) perceive no threat from the café members. A kkk member could not (and should not, according to organization doctrine) perceive safety in an African American business.
Peaceful and fruitful relations are possible between (p)anarchists and police. It’s not possible for kkk members and African Americans. If a kkk member perceived safety in an African American business, then that kkk member’s perception would be in discord with the kkk. If a police officer perceived safety in an anarchist business, then the police officer’s perception would be in harmony with her actual purpose.
Police officers could and should help further (p)anarchists’ interests. kkk members can’t and won’t help further African American interests. That is my standard. If the Red and Black Cafe owners can’t persuade their customers to see the upside of dialogue with police, then that’s their failing.
c) It can’t just be a matter of having a function that involves drawing distinctions among people, because the police draw distinctions among people too (lawbreakers vs. non-lawbreakers, police vs. “civilians,” etc.).
It’s not. It’s a matter of whether those distinctions allow room for peaceful and fruitful relations or not.
Seems to me this debate has gotten surreal.
What’s surreal to me is that the organization that’s supposed to supply order and the organization that demands order both pretend that there’s an unbridgeable gulf between them.
[…H]ow exactly is the state/government distinction supposed to show what you originally invoked it to show — namely that Charles’s arguments against the possibility of consenting to an existing state don’t apply to consenting to an existing government?
Well, that equivocates between my use of “state” and yours (my fault I think). If “state” is a map the government follows, then, as a moral fact, we’re ruled by the “state” of natural law. We both want agencies with the power of force to follow natural law. Natural law is an already-established map and yet I don’t think either of us would have a problem saying we consent to it.
So are you saying that the government is a successful parody or deconstruction of the state?
I’m saying that the government is not necessarily bound by the particular state it was a moment ago. The government can switch maps.
With all due respect (which is a whole lot), it doesn’t make sense to me that you call yourselves anti-statists. You’re really just anti this state. And you want to supplant it with natural law — that state. Unless you’re advocating to throw away the maps. And that’s what I call anarcho-corporatism.
And if it were about all races, it would still apply only to humans. Or if it were about all intelligent life forms, it would still leave out geraniums. How does “applying only to some category than which there exists a broader category” equate to relativism?
What exactly do you mean by relativism? The usual meaning of relativism is that the truth of a claim varies depending on different people’s perspective. That meaning doesn’t seem to apply here, so what do you mean instead?
First: again, why doesn’t this objection to the KKK apply equally to the NAACP? You seem very strangely to be focusing on something innocuous about the KKK as opposed to what in real life makes them objectionable.
Second: how on earth could police operate behind the veil of ignorance, if they’re not allowed to know they’re police officers?
But now you’re switching to the actual KKK — so I don’t see why I’m not allowed to invoke the actual police. After all, the fictional “nice” analogue to the KKK would have no problem perceiving safety in an African American business either. You switch back and forth between the broad and narrow definitions without justification.
So are you saying that the distinction between black and white doesn’t allow for peaceful and fruitful relations, but that the distinction between police officers and “civilians” does?
The former claim, once again, would condemn the NAACP along with the KKK.
As for the latter claim, I’d say the whole distinction between police and “civilians,” where the former have rights denied to the latter, is fundamentally incompatible with human moral equality — which doesn’t leave much room for peaceful and fruitful relations.
Okay, then my original question remains: how is it possible to consent to an (existing) government in the face of Charles’ arguments?
Well, to coin a phrase, that “equivocates between our use of ‘state’ and yours.” You’ve defined the state as natural law and then you wonder why anarchists say they’re against the state. But what anarchist — heck, what person anywhere other than you — ever defined the state as natural law? Obviously when we attack the state we mean “state” in the ordinary sense, not in your idiosyncratic sense.
How does “applying only to some category than which there exists a broader category” equate to relativism?
It doesn’t; you’re right. I’m conflating relativism with pluralism-blind-to-generic-universalism.
[…W]hy doesn’t this objection to the KKK apply equally to the NAACP?
It does. What I want to emphasis, even though I’ve done it poorly, is that the NAACP and the police, in general, aren’t blind to multiculturalism. kkk in general is.
So are you saying that the distinction between black and white doesn’t allow for peaceful and fruitful relations, but that the distinction between police officers and “civilians” does?
Blindness to multiculturalism forecloses peaceful and fruitful relations. Misperceptions of authority make peaceful and fruitful relations less likely.
[…]I’d say the whole distinction between police and “civilians,” where the former have rights denied to the latter, is fundamentally incompatible with human moral equality[…]
I don’t think that distinction is as problematic as police losing sight of “civilians” as their boss.
[…H]ow is it possible to consent to an (existing) government in the face of Charles’ arguments?
I think of governments as necessarily existing within a panarchist system. So long as people believe in natural rights, some institutions will act as legitimate governments in which people can immerse themselves. That immersion is a choice and functions identically to consent.
You’ve defined the state as natural law[…]
No. I haven’t. I’ve defined the state as a map that the government follows. Which map is the question. Natural law is one map, the correct map. The most powerful map is (anarcho)corporatism.
Obviously when we attack the state we mean “state” in the ordinary sense, not in your idiosyncratic sense.
Is the ordinary sense necessarily the most accurate sense? Even if the ordinary sense forecloses the common sense notion of state-as-map?
Should I take no response to mean that you agree with me? ‘Cause if you disagree, you’d have to claim that natural law is not a paradigm or that the state is not a paradigm. I’d be interested to hear how either of those stories go…
I’m not sure what you even mean by “paradigm.” Your use of terms is often baffling. I think I can see what might be meant in calling natural law a paradigm; but as the terms “state” and “paradigm” are ordinarily used, the state doesn’t seem to be a paradigm. The state is a particular institution; it’s more like a (big scary) building than like a blueprint for one.
[…A]s the terms “state” and “paradigm” are ordinarily used, the state doesn’t seem to be a paradigm.
I thought your use of “state” referenced monopolized law. And I would classify monopolized law as a paradigm. I would do so in the same way you can imagine natural law or polycentric law as a paradigm.
The state is a particular institution[…]
Would that institution happen to be the government? Government is to state as the morning star is to the evening star? Same reference; different sense?
I’m more inclined to say that the precise use of “state” references a paradigm: monopolized law, while the precise use of “government” references the on-going process of shaping a population’s will in accordance with the state.
How is the Molinari Institute not the articulation of a polycentric state just waiting for competing governments to provide content?
How is the Kingdom of Heaven (well, the reference, not the sense given to it by Christendom) not an inner government advancing a state of natural law?
And what exactly does it mean to want a stateless society? What does it mean to be anti-state?