green numbers give full details | back to texts | unexpand these ideas
| 24410 | People see tradition as an adequate reason for a repeated action |
| Full Idea: The fact that something has always been done in a certain way strikes most people a a perfectly adequate reason for doing it that way again. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 1.1) | |||
| A reaction: Not entirely absurd. 'Don't reinvent the wheel' is a good slogan. But repetition of events and actions becomes a way to dilute possible criticisms. Some traditions are ludicrous. |
| 24413 | An anarchist has no country, since he views all governments in an equal light |
| Full Idea: We might characterise the anarchist as a man without a country, …since he stands in the same relationship to 'his' country as he does to the government of any other country he might happen to stay in. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 1.3) | |||
| A reaction: This seems to be an understandable ground (along with all the others!) for a conservative person to dislike anarchists, because they lack national loyalty. Are anarchists loyal to their families? If so, why? |
| 24412 | States have a right to rule, but autonomous people refuse to be ruled. Hence Anarchism |
| Full Idea: The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. …So it seems that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], p.18) | |||
| A reaction: If you enthusiastically support a dictator, that looks like an exercise of personal autonomy. He relies heavily on Kant's view of morality, as the individual's duty to follow a self-imposed categorical imperative. Try virtues instead. |
| 24414 | Democracy is the only politics which might reconcile authority and autonomy |
| Full Idea: There is only one form of political community which offers any hope of resolving the conflict between authority and autonomy, and that is democracy. …It tries to extend the duty of autonomy to the realm of collective action. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.1) | |||
| A reaction: He is not including anarchism, which presumably demolishes the authority (just as totalitarians demolish the autonomy). He goes on to explore the democratic approach, and eventually rejects it. |
| 24415 | Democracy ideally wants unanimous directness, with compromises because of obstacles |
| Full Idea: Unanimous direct democracy is the ideal which underlies much classical democratic theory. The devices of a majority and representation are introduced to overcome obstacles in the way of unanimity and directness. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.2) | |||
| A reaction: Apparent unanimity probably involves a minority quietly giving up, rather than 100% enthusiasm. It is usually a conspiracy when they say 'the people want this'. But any close group must aspire to unanimity. |
| 24420 | Since the majority are much stronger, we need rule by ballot to prevent their rule by force |
| Full Idea: Since the majority are, militarily speaking, likely to be the superior body, they must be allowed to rule by the ballot; for otherwise they will resort to force and throw society back into chaos. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.4) | |||
| A reaction: I'd never thought of this, and I find it persuasive. However, it seems to be a strong objection to the author's preferred anarchy. In ungoverned communities there will be regular majorities. How can we prevent them from enforcing their will? |
| 24416 | What authority have laws made by a representative who is unlike me, and doesn't know me? |
| Full Idea: On what grounds can it be claimed that I have an obligation to obey the laws which are made in my name by a person who has no obligation to vote as I would, and no way of discovering what my preferences are? | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.3) | |||
| A reaction: Some UK MPs barely even visit their constituencies. This objection applies less in local government, but is a good objection to a large national assembly. One of the many causes of voter alienation. |
| 24417 | If the views of candidate and voter don't coincide, there is no way they can really represent them |
| Full Idea: If a citizen cannot even find a candidate whose views coincide with their own, then there is no possibility at all that he will send to parliament a genuine representative. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.3) | |||
| A reaction: He has shown that the complexity of issues makes such a coincidence of views a virtual impossibility. Ain't this the truth? All you can hope for is to elect someone who seems to be 'my sort of person'. |
| 24421 | In most disputes, especially early on, the minority are usually in the right |
| Full Idea: Experience would seem to suggest that truth lies with the minority in most disputes, and certainly that is the case in the early stages of the acceptance of new discoveries. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.4) | |||
| A reaction: Aristotle says that if the majority is overwhelming then they are probably right. But in closer cases Wolff has a very good point. |
| 24419 | The minority in a vote make a moral judgement which is then forcibly overruled |
| Full Idea: A member of a minority voting against a law appears to be in the position of a man who, deliberating on a moral question, rejects an alternative only to find it forced upon him by a superior power. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2.4) | |||
| A reaction: If felt like this about the 2016 Brexit. I was forced to reject people I considered to be our friends. Wolff (following Kant) sees individual moral autonomy as the main human value, so this is the key anarchist objection to democracy. |
| 24418 | Very few of us really believe in government by the people |
| Full Idea: Most modern belief in democracy is very shallow. It is obvious that very few individuals really hold with government by the people. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 2 App) | |||
| A reaction: He says that a system of instant electronic direct democracy would immediately be rejected as 'too democratic'. Even in a very democratic tribe I would expect a few less respected members to be excluded from discussions. |
| 24423 | If you competitively cut prices to gain advantage, you push all the prices down |
| Full Idea: As each entrepreneur strives to increase his profit by cutting his price slightly, hoping thereby to seize a larger portion of the total market, the market price of his commodity falls steadily, and everyone experiences a decline in profit | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 3.1) | |||
| A reaction: This is the logic which leads to the universal tacit cartel of keeping prices higher than they need to be. A complex instance of the Prisoner's Dilemma. How come all the plumbers in an area charge roughly the same rate? |
| 24424 | Free markets very efficiently coordinate behaviour, without need for coercion |
| Full Idea: Classical liberal political economists have pointed out that the natural operation of the market is an extremely efficient way of coordinating human behaviour on a large scale without coercion or appeal to authority. | |||
| From: Robert Paul Wolff (In Defence of Anarchism [1970], 3.2) | |||
| A reaction: Wolff says that this is true, but it is not rational to allow it if you actually know how to control the markets to limit their worst effects. This freedom of markets is a mantra for the right wing, but what is the downside of free markets? |