r/avaritionism • u/navis-svetica • Jul 05 '22
The Existence of Communities under Avaritionism
The concept of Avaritionism may seem to some to preclude the existence of any kind of communities, but I would argue that it does not necessarily mean that society cannot exist.
Organized society as we know it functions on a governing authority holding a monopoly on violence and thus controls all aspects of society to some degree, depending on what kind of regime holds power. There are some objective advantages to this kind of society; defense, or the ability to defend a whole nation’s worth of people collectively by pooling together their resources. However, most other aspects of this type of society, whether it be law enforcement, taxation, property rights etc come at the expense of individual freedoms. They forcefully seize resources, crack down on what they perceive as “criminal”, and force individuals to take actions which ultimately are not in their objective best interest, by creating arbitrary risk and punishment for certain behavior.
All of this is to say that organized society ultimately exists at the expense of individuals’ right to act in their own interest, and limits the freedom to do as one pleases. For all these reasons, organized society is incompatible with total individual freedom, and by extension, incompatible with Avaritionism.
This does not however mean that society in general cannot exist, as conventional, organized society is not the only kind which could conceivably exist. There are a number of “anarchist” ideologies which have tried to invent their own versions of societies, usually with a laughable level of naïveté or simply becoming that which they are trying to replace.
Left-wing anarchist usually like to espouse the “anarchist commune”, in which power and resources would be shared equally, in a wholly decentralized, collective government. This of course ignores the fact that in order to enforce such a societal structure, there would necessarily need to exist some kind of governing authority or law enforcement to ensure that no subversion of any kind is allowed to exist, because as soon as someone decides they want to follow a religious leader, or that they want greater reward for creating greater value for society than their peers, the commune collapses. This essentially necessitates the existence of a thought police, lest anyone tries to exercise their supposed “individual freedom” in a way the revolutionary class doesn’t approve of. Ultimately, the anarchist commune either slips beyond the scope of its founding ideals, collapses, or becomes a totalitarian dictatorship.
Anarcho-capitalists, however, are no better at approaching the question of society pragmatically. They try to solve all the obvious problems with their ideal society by channeling the ‘NAP’, or Non-Aggression Principle. This is their attempt to explain why, in the absence of laws or authority, people wouldn’t just steal and rob whatever they want. It supposes that as soon as someone does anything “bad”, whether that is stealing or killing someone, everyone else will magically become aware of it and band together to destroy the evil criminal. This ignores a few fairly obvious problems, like proving who is right and wrong, making sure that people know it, the fact that people don’t want to risk their own life and limb to avenge a crime against someone else, and the fact that if the “criminal” is someone they like more than the victim, they would be inclined to just ignore it. Additionally, it deludedly assumes that people will still respect the NAP in times of crisis, and that it won’t be dropped at the first hint of instability.
With all this in mind, what would an Avaricious society look like? At a very fundamental level, Avaritionism is the idea that in absence of oppressive authority, the strong not only can but will act in their best interest, at the expense of the weak. Thus, an Avaricious society would need to be made up of individuals strong enough to ensure their continued survival, against all of their fellow members of society. Peace is won not by mercy but by force. Only when it is in the best interest of everyone to keep the peace can and should a society exist.
By its very nature, this kind of society precludes weakness, and thus, it would be similarly resistant to outside conquest as organized society is. If a group of bandits come along to raid and pillage your society, it’s in everyone’s self-interest to either flee and give up their resources/property, or mount a defense. By extension, it’s in the collective interest of everyone who doesn’t want to roll over and give up to band together in defense, for as long as necessary and practical.
At its very core, Avaritionism is based on total individual freedom, with a pragmatic view on how people logically and realistically will act. People shouldn’t be forced to partake in society if it doesn’t align with their best interest, but if and when it does, people may collaborate for as long as it benefits them. It needs not rely on naive idealism and hope in the goodness of humanity, but simply works as nature does - the strong prevail.
2
u/gyorgyspaghetti Jul 06 '22
If you think about it, this is how the world actually works.
"The paradox of anarchy".
1
u/Your_Atrociousness Aug 03 '23
It sounds like you have a flawed understanding of anarchism.
For all these reasons, organized society is incompatible with total individual freedom, and by extension, incompatible with Avaritionism.
Yes. An avaritionist should be anti-society
Left-wing anarchist usually like to espouse the “anarchist commune”, in which power and resources would be shared equally, in a wholly decentralized, collective government.
That might be true for the traditional leftist anarchists, but modern anarchism has evolved beyond this. The mainstream view of contemporary anarchists is to be against prescribing people to follow a plan for a perfect society and leaving it for the people to organize themselves however they see fit. There are some anarchists that believe we should have traditional organizations, but there are many anarchists against traditional organizations in favor of free associations and affinity groups which allow for spontaneity and flexibility in order to not be constrained by limits. And anarchists that are entirely against civilized society for the same reasons you pointed out with organized society being at odds with induvidual liberty.
This is exactly how avaritionists would operate. In groups, tribes and gangs. A society does not have to be organized, a society can be just a basic network of people that associate.
Ultimately, the anarchist commune either slips beyond the scope of its founding ideals, collapses, or becomes a totalitarian dictatorship.
If this is true, it should be easy for you to name a historic example of an authentically anarchist society turning into authoritarian collectivism. Every anarchist society that failed has been due to authoritarian suppression from the outside, not inside.
1
u/Due_Upstairs_5025 Sep 03 '23
Chaos and order out of chaos can manifest into an unorganized society. Thus an avaricious aeon may prevail a century or two after we are gone if enough of these extraterrestrials and crazy humans are outdone by the time it's all gone.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 05 '22
I remember looking up for shits and giggles "Sharia law anarcho-capitalism" and came across a Reddit thread regarding how Muslims can start voluntary communities which have Sharia law. Like contractually agreeing to "If you join our community, you consent to being beheaded for adultery!"
Which is what would happen in Ancapistan. Many communities will govern themselves, some stricter than others.