Unpleasantness

Anarchy is a political system in the same sense that atheism is a religion. Which is to say not the slightest bit. Anarchy is the absence of politics. Anarchy is a state of mind. It is the absolute belief in the right of self-ownership and the total rejection of any philosophy which violates this right. Which means we will never see an anarchic society. Because even anarchists I have much respect for profess support for things which are diametrically opposed to the principle of self-ownership.

Self-ownership means that nobody else has the right to control you. So long as your behavior does not impinge on their property rights people must leave you alone. This is the core belief of anarchy. There is no way around it. If you seek to control the behavior of another human being you cannot lay claim to the title of anarchist.

Yet there are anarchists who believe in control. To be fair, they do not believe in control in the sense the state believes in control. But it amounts to the same thing. They believe there is a certain way people should act and that people who act differently should be shunned or otherwise coerced into behaving appropriately. They call this “etiquette”.

The good folks at Merriam-Webster define etiquette thusly, “the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life.” I am especially intrigued by, “prescribed by authority”. Exactly how does this fit into the anarchist philosophy?

Etiquette is democracy at its most insidious. It is an unwritten set of arbitrary rules that seem to come from nowhere. They aren't written to protect property rights or general safety. They are simply rules to govern trivial behaviors.

During a recent debate on the subject, I was informed that a person's etiquette showed their willingness to comply with the rules of polite society. If I was willing to comply with arbitrary rules I wouldn't be an anarchist in the first place. Etiquette is obedience for the sake of obedience. Again, how does that fit into the philosophy of anarchy?

In this same debate the argument was made that etiquette was a good way to judge an individual's character. It was stated that a person's manners indicated whether they were trustworthy, a decent person to deal with. This is demonstrably false. First of all, conmen are notoriously well-mannered. They realize you can gather more flies with honey than with vinegar. And there are a great many people who deliberately put on a show of being polite and decent while secretly being complete assholes. Politicians spring to mind. Manners tell you nothing about the actual character of a person.

Here is a prime example of the meaninglessness of etiquette, the classic thumbs-up gesture. In the English-speaking world this is universally taken to indicate approval. We use it to say “nice job” or “way to go”. It's a friendly gesture. It may not be formal, but it is unquestionably considered polite.

But in the Arabic world a raised thumb is taboo. It is the equivalent of the American extended middle finger. So if you were to visit one of these places and innocently give somebody a thumbs-up for some reason they would be greatly insulted and would consider you a rude individual.

The gesture itself did not change. The intent behind it, the character of the person giving the gesture, did not change. But it created two completely opposite results. The difference had nothing to do with the gesture or the person giving it and everything to do with the etiquette of the recipient. This is the fundamental problem with etiquette. It means you must always follow the rules of those you are dealing with. Your rules, your etiquette, are irrelevant. You are being judged on how well you conform to their rules. This is not an anarchic ideal.

Etiquette is a social contract. This, again, is a concept abhorrent to anarchists. There is no rational way to justify the concept within an anarchic framework. If you believe it is righteous to require people to follow an arbitrary set of rules then you have no basis to argue against statism. If you truly believe in the right of self-ownership then you have no rational basis for demanding people behave in a certain way.

The point I want to make with this note is that anarchy is a mindset. It is the belief that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. Pure, unadulterated anarchy would not be anbody's idea of utopia. Anarchy means there will be sodomy in the parks. Anarchy means people will be doing drugs while waiting for the bus. Anarchy means there will be scores of things going on which you may not personally approve of. And anarchy means you will be powerless to stop it.

Etiquette is the complete opposite of anarchy. Etiquette is the idea that certain behaviors are wrong and that somebody has the right to determine which behaviors these are and to then enforce a ban on them. The church's stance against homosexuality, for example. You may accuse me of exaggerating, but the logic is identical. The church thinks homosexuality is a sin and seeks to eliminate it by “converting” gays to “normal”. Similarly, mannerphiles see farting at the dinner table as a sin and seek to eliminate it by “educating” people on “proper” behavior. Just like the church, proponents of etiquette presume to have a monopoly on what is righteous. And they will gladly punish those who stray from the path.

I said at the start that we will never have an anarchic society. I stand by that claim. As long as people hold the mindset that it is acceptable to control the behavior of others we will never be free of tyranny. Ms. Manners and her rules of etiquette may not be as homicidal as the Khmer Rouge. But the attitude is precisely the same; “I know what's right. Do as I say and we'll get along just fine.” We can never have a free society as long as people think that way.

Be vewy, vewy quiet...

...I'm huntin' yabbuts. Yabbuts are mystical creatures that have nothing in common with the furry, long-eared animals with the similar name; unless you count the bunny from that Monty Python movie. Yabbuts are fierce predators who stalk and kill rational arguments. They are actually more commonly known by their full scientific name, “yeah, but”.

There are several breeds of yabbut. There's the “I think”, the “I feel”, the colorful “you can't convince me”, and so on. Most breeds also have counterbreeds; “I don't think”, “I don't feel”, etc. These breeds all have their distinctive characteristics. But they are all still yabbuts. Don't be fooled into thinking one is any less dangerous than the others.

You've undoubtedly encountered yabbuts more than once. Their range is unlimited and they can thrive in all conditions. Their primary food source, ignorance, is abundant everywhere. It's almost certain your encounters have not ended well.

As I said, yabbuts feed on ignorance. Those who raise yabbuts feed them a steady diet and keep them quite healthy. These breeders don't seem to realize the danger their pets pose to others. They will let yabbuts fly in a perfectly civil discussion without the slightest regard for the trail of yabbut shit they will leave behind. The yabbuts then proceed to consume all the logic in the room. It is often painful to watch.

Far worse, yabbuts breed at the speed of thought. If you find yourself conversing with a breeder you would be best advised to leave the area quickly. Yabbuts are extremely territorial. They will defend their breeder's beliefs without mercy. Your facts and reason will not save you. The breeder will send yabbut after yabbut flying at you. You will quickly be covered in yabbuts as though they were tribbles. (For those keeping score, that's one Python and one Trek reference in a single post). Far better to flee. Save your energies for a debate you can actually gain from.

Note that I didn't say a debate you can win. Debates aren't about winning. Debates are about finding the truth. You won't find truth in a pile of yabbut shit. You will only find ignorance, dogma, and the bones of older arguments the yabbuts savagely tore to pieces.

Yabbuts can also be sneaky. It is entirely possible to find them breeding in your own head. Fortunately, this is the one place they are vulnerable. When you feel a yabbut scratching at your tongue trying to get out, don't let it! For the love of all that is rational in this universe keep that yabbut inside. Crush it under the boot of reason. It isn't always easy. Yabbuts are cunning. They can persuade the best of us to set them free. Be vigilant. Be strong. The world will be a saner place for your efforts.

On anarchy and business

If there is one subject on which I find myself at odds with my fellow anarchists more than any other it is business. Specifically, big business. To be blunt, anarchists have no clue what business is about. It seems anarchists are little more than spoiled children lashing out at mommy for making them clean their room.

I just read a piece authored by a gentleman who insisted the thugs smashing store windows and burning cop cars in protest are genuine anarchists fighting for our freedom. While I take no issue with attacking state troops and property, smashing store windows is not fighting for freedom.

Now the author made the standard claim as laid out in the black bloc handbook. He stated that smashing the windows of big businesses is not a violation of property rights because big businesses are just an extension of the state. Wrong. Corporations are no different than any other business. They are not inherently evil. They are not branches of govt. But they serve as a popular whipping boy for those unable to fend for themselves.

Here are some simple facts:

Corporations are just groups of people working together towards a common goal. They are no different from co-ops, small businesses, partnerships, or even communes in this respect. If you are going to claim corporations should not exist because they gang up on small businesses then you have to outlaw any form of business which involves more than one person.

Corporations do not profit from govt any more than any other group does. This is the biggest strawman argument of all. Anti-business anarchists insist corporations are illegitimate because they suckle at the state teet. Well who doesn't? Show me a single business that does not take advantage of things the state has produced. If you drive a car you "benefit" from the state by using the roads it built. And every single business, regardless the size, tries to leverage the laws to it's advantage. This argument says nothing specific about corporations.

The complaints against corporations are based in ignorance. Anarchists attack the concept of "limited liability" without even understanding what it means. Limited liability, the reason for "corporate" status in the first place, means that members of the corporation are not personally liable for the actions of the corporation. It does not mean, as people love to assume, that corporations can do whatever the hell they want without being punished. The best example of this would be the January 6th, 2005 wreck of a Norfolk Southern train in Graniteville, South Carolina. The wreck occurred because one man on the crew forgot to set a switch properly. As a result, nine people died, 250 were hospitalized, and a local textile mill was forced to close due to contamination, putting 4,000 people out of work. One man caused all this. It wasn't the CEO or some bigwig. And the only punishment that man received was losing his job. The corporation, on the other hand, was sued by the owners of the mill and settled for an undisclosed sum. They were also sued by the EPA and forced to pay $4,000,000 in fines for polluting a nearby creek. This is despite the fact that "Norfolk Southern" had done nothing wrong. The entire fault for the accident was placed on the crew which had failed to put a switch in the proper position. If some vandal had deliberately moved the switch you can be certain that individual would have been charged with a multitude of crimes. But the crewman was charged with nothing and held responsible for nothing. Why? Limited liability. As a member of a corporation he got to say "oops" and leave the corporation holding the bag for his mistake. That's how it works.

I would ask these anti-business types a question. At what point does a business go from wholesome to evil? I assume a sole-proprietorship is as wholesome and noble as a business can get. Does each new employee make the business a little more evil? Or should we do away with limited liability so that every member of a corporation can be personally sued for the actions of the other members? Show me some objective data that proves why "big" business is inherently wrong. Because right now all I see is a bunch of emotional babble.

What these anti-business types seem to forget is that without big businesses we would have none of the luxuries we enjoy today. Some things are only practical because of the economics of scale. You wouldn't have a television if some local artisan had to extract his own raw materials, produce the parts, and assemble the unit all by himself. The only way to produce goods in sufficient quantity is with a large-scale operation. And that can only happen with a lot of people working towards one goal. We will always need "big" business to produce the things we desire. The only alternative is for everybody to produce their own things. Which means we fall back to subsistence farming. Good luck with that.