I just submitted
this article to the Dunnville Free Press. For those without access to that
publication, here is the full text.
Title: Anarchy to be
debated at the Wainfleet Library’s Philosopher’s Cafe Meeting in December.
By John Taylor, 29
November, 2014
This month's
discussion topic for the Wainfleet Philosopher's Cafe is "Anarchism."
Let me outline some of the ramifications of this topic here. If you have
something to add or you oppose what I say, do come out to our next meeting, on
the second Thursday of December, the 11th, at 6:30 PM. We want to hear what you
have to say!
Anarchism is the
belief that we do not need government. It comes from the Greek roots,
"an" for not, and "archy," meaning rule, or more precisely,
a public office or position. This idea is attractive because, on first blush it
seems to express tolerance. An anarchist has faith in his fellow man, who he
deems smart enough to rule himself without resort to bothersome outside laws
and rules. This idea showed its face at our last Cafe meeting. I wanted to
follow through on it in our next encounter.
As animator of our
small but outspoken and opinionated discussion group for the last decade, I
have gained expertise in anarchic rule. I am now a Laissez Faire anarchist in
that, usually, I refrain from steering or even interfering in the discussion. I
just sit back and watch as the participants go from order, each taking his or
her turn expressing a moderate opinion, to disorder, breaking up into two or
three separate, simultaneous, heated debates. Such anarchy, I find, rapidly
burns up energy. One-on-one clashes of opinion flash out brilliantly but soon
burn themselves out. After a few minutes of this, I find that exhausted members
are happy to reunify into a common dialogue again. Rarely do they break up like
this more than once.
That is not to
say, though, that Philosopher's Cafe participants always cling to a single
topic throughout the meeting. In fact, we do not always remember the given
subject of discussion in the beginning. Even when we do, in the heat of debate
it is soon forgotten. The real topic is what bothers the next speaker the most.
As a result, our subject is up for grabs, minute-by-minute. Even if we remember
what we are supposed to be talking about, it will change and transform with
each new contribution. Everybody has to get a shot at redefining the question.
A more
authoritarian mind than mine would feel nothing but consternation at such
confused dialectic. For me, though, this is a good thing. It is a sign that
things are as they should be. The real issue cannot be static. It is the
speaker decides it is. If you cannot change the subject of debate, it is not
really a debate, it is a circuitous lecture. How can you define the real issue
beforehand? Without the ability to change the topic, what is the point of
inviting everybody to speak? In that sense, I am very much an anarchist.
That is not to say
that I approve of anarchism as a political philosophy. Like all
"isms," anarchism is really a kind of idolatry. It is based on an
unproven, in fact, an often-disproven assumption that if we leave things alone,
everything will work out for the best. That may happen, but chances are, they
will work out for the worst. Anarchism is a false faith that only continues as
an option because it is useful to potentates seeking to divide and rule.
Experience with anarchic rule shows that it leads only to disaster at worst,
and weakness and violence at best. Generally speaking, those nations with
strong governments, unafraid to intervene when needed, end up as the most just,
prosperous and influential.
Thus, another word
for anarchy is "power vacuum." As with a physical vacuum in the
atmosphere, as soon as it is set up nature decrees tremendous, insidious
pressure to break into and occupy it. Instead of rule by solid, fair, open and
comprehensible laws and principles, anarchic leadership is immediately,
explosively, invaded by the first windbag or thug close enough to break into
the void. That is why the word "anarchy" is used so often as a synonym
for self-destructive violence.
That said, it is
always a mistake to assume that intelligent people will hold onto stupid,
demonstrably false beliefs. No modern anarchist, surely, would hold onto an
untenable position like what I just described. Perhaps they understand anarchy
as a sort of autopilot for human governance. That is, just as automation has
taken over most menial jobs in manufacture, eventually automatic processes will
spread into management. Then, like the pilots who fly us around the globe, your
boss or your prime minister will have an "autopilot switch" to run
the government while they go off to the bathroom, or leave the controls for any
other reason.
Actually, there is
surely a switch for leaders already. How else could heads of state take time
off from their work to chase every flood, hurricane, politically sensitive
crime, or other disaster, in order to assuage our fears by expressing sympathy
or "solidarity" with the victims? To me, though, that is crazy. If
their job is important, how can they just drop it like that? How would you feel
if your doctor suspended her practice to aid in disaster relief, or the
teachers in your children's schools ran off to help out with every problem that
hits the headlines? That would be anarchy indeed.
An anarchic
government, then, would be one where computers and robots do most or all of the
work of public office while humans relax, have fun and, when we feel do feel
ambitious, take on less important and potentially dangerous tasks. It would be
rule of the machines. If only science fiction writers had something to say
about that, eh? Anyway, would you entrust your government to an automated
leader? Are you an anarchist in this sense?
