Liberal vs. Anarchist

[Meh Gerbil]

While it is true that liberalism shares many aspects of anarchy I think the differences are enough that the two terms are worth preserving. That aside, I think we've several people in this forum who've been labeled with the liberal moniker when in fact they're not liberal at all, but rather, anarchists. For the sake of this discussion anarchy is simply defined as 'rule without law' or the ability to opt in to law while opting out of others.

Here are some common positions that is labeled as liberal when it fact they are anarchist.

#1: A person who wants politician A prosecuted for crimes but doesn't want politician B to be prosecuted for crimes. This person may appear to be ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal depending on whose name you put in for A and B, respectively, but the fact is this person is neither liberal or conservative, but rather anarchist. This person is demonstrating that they want the ability to opt-in or opt-out of the law which is a de facto state of lawlessness. Equal treatment under the law is a foundation stone of a law based society and to deny it is to take a step in the direction of anarchy.

#2: A person who wants to prosecute a politician for a crime for which there is only circumstantial evidence or altogether no evidence whatsoever is neither liberal nor conservative but rather an anarchist. A fundamental keystone of a law based society is 'innocent unless proven guilty'. If you disregard that foundation stone of a law based society you're taking a step towards anarchy.

#3: A person who advocates the breaking of the law in substantive ways: violence, destruction of property, etc. as a means to an end instead utilizing the legal means is neither conservative or liberal, but also an anarchist.

Down to specific examples: We've several posters on this forum who want to excuse their politicians regardless of crimes while prosecuting other politicians with no evidence and who grant blessings to those who engage in riotous behavior. It is time we stop referring to these people as liberals (there are liberals who respect the rule of law) and call them what they are: anarchist.

[Darth Executor]

I think the distinction you're making is very silly. It would make both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union "anarchist", which just destroys any worthwhile meaning of the word. Wanting a skewed application of laws isn't anarchist, it's just plain old authoritarian. In the current zeitgeist it's not even an honest belief so much as a tactic some people are choosing to pursue with the war to remake society in their image.

[Meh Gerbil]

The reason this distinction is important to me is because I blow quite a bit of hot air (1) in the direction of liberals but I think most of it is actually a response to anarchy.





NOTES
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Gas-baggery.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think the distinction you're making is very silly. It would make both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union "anarchist", which just destroys any worthwhile meaning of the word. Wanting a skewed application of laws isn't anarchist, it's just plain old authoritarian. In the current zeitgeist it's not even an honest belief so much as a tactic some people are choosing to pursue with the war to remake society in their image.

Just to kick the football around here a bit:
I would agree that leadership showing preferential treatment for itself would be authoritarian. Check.
Wouldn't those who are not in power wanting to rule via demonstrations and personal whim be anarchist?

I see a pretty big difference between someone who abuses a position of power vs. members of the ruled who want to discard the rule of law.

No?

[Sparko]

I think you are confusing hypocrisy for anarchy.

[Meh Gerbil]

I think you are confusing hypocrisy for anarchy.

I think hypocrisy is the best for which one could hope.
I suspect the approach isn't hypocrisy as much as it is a mode of operation.

I've a distinction to be made here that is important but I'm having a hard time putting it into words.

If a man gets into a fight in a bar and accidently kills another man that is murder.
If a man builds a furnace in the backyard and spends 40 years throwing children into it that is murder.

In both cases the word murder is accurate but in one case it is a passionate, heat of the moment, perhaps even self-defense act that the murderer would find regrettable. In the second case the murder isn't just murder but a standard, intellectually accepted mode of operation that is in-line with some underlying purpose. In the first case the death is the end result whereas in the second case the death is part of a larger enterprise.

I think for some the casting off of the law is part of a more sinister and subversive enterprise.
It goes beyond hypocrisy - the term is accurate, but it doesn't capture the scale of what is happening.

[Darth Executor]

you'd have to be opposed to the very idea of law as a matter of principle to be an anarchist. misusing/abusing/skirting laws in and of itself don't make one an anarchist. IMO you should stop thinking of liberals as rational beings. Liberalism isn't an ideology or a set of principles, it's a mental disorder wielded by those in power for their own benefit. its stated principles (which constantly change) are immaterial.

[Meh Gerbil]

you'd have to be opposed to the very idea of law as a matter of principle to be an anarchist. misusing/abusing/skirting laws in and of itself don't make one an anarchist. IMO you should stop thinking of liberals as rational beings. Liberalism isn't an ideology or a set of principles, it's a mental disorder wielded by those in power for their own benefit. its stated principles (which constantly change) are immaterial.

I'm finding these clarifications valuable.

It seems to me that some liberals are functionally anarchists. When you can apply the law to politician A and not apply the same law to politician B and defend that was the way things should be that isn't any type of lawfulness but rather just centering how society is to be run on one's own preferences. Isn't that functionally anarchy? Imagine the law is a sword. The person uses the sword on politician A and not on politician B based only on personal preferences. That seems like anarchy to me.

[Darth Executor]

Laws are themselves somene's preference in the first place, backed by muscle. In common vernacular, a proper anarchist would not want "the law" (as in government authorities) to be used at all. Selective use of it is not even remotely the same thing.

I don't think it's helpful to distinguish between honest, consistent liberals and the crazy ones you describe because the former is a mythical animal. In fact, what you try to label as an anarchist is just a liberal, and what you want to label a liberal doesn't exist, or is an endangered species at best. IMO, it would be better to rename the former. "Sucker" sounds good to me.

[Jedidiah]

you'd have to be opposed to the very idea of law as a matter of principle to be an anarchist. misusing/abusing/skirting laws in and of itself don't make one an anarchist. IMO you should stop thinking of liberals as rational beings. Liberalism isn't an ideology or a set of principles, it's a mental disorder wielded by those in power for their own benefit. its stated principles (which constantly change) are immaterial.

He is clearly talking comic book anarchist.

[Meh Gerbil]

Laws are themselves somene's preference in the first place, backed by muscle. In common vernacular, a proper anarchist would not want "the law" (as in government authorities) to be used at all. Selective use of it is not even remotely the same thing.

I don't think it's helpful to distinguish between honest, consistent liberals and the crazy ones you describe because the former is a mythical animal. In fact, what you try to label as an anarchist is just a liberal, and what you want to label a liberal doesn't exist, or is an endangered species at best. IMO, it would be better to rename the former. "Sucker" sounds good to me.

So in your opinion there isn't an honest, law-abiding liberal who would want to enact law through legal channels and then follow that law even if it was personally unpopular. Instead, they're all functionally (1) anarchists too stupid to realize the obvious relationship between how they act and the ideology of anarchy?

If they aren't functionally the same (even if not ideologically the same) what would be the behavioral differences that you'd expect between the two?


NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I think the riots illustrate a wanton disregard for property, people, and basic human rights.

[Meh Gerbil]

He is clearly talking comic book anarchist.

If you're going to insult me do it to my face instead of wrapping it up in a response to another post.
Be forewarned: I'm friends with Sparko.

[Carrikature]

I would agree with #2 and #3 but not #1. That, as Sparko says, is just hypocrisy.

[Carrikature]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I think the riots illustrate a wanton disregard for property, people, and basic human rights.

They illustrate a tendency to throw a tantrum.

[JonathanL]

If a man gets into a fight in a bar and accidently kills another man that is murder.

Well, I'm obviously not an expert on US law (or Finnish law for that matter), but wouldn't that be an example of manslaughter, rather than murder?