So, can a paladin be an anarchist?
Didn't want to threadjack this thread, but it made me wonder something else about alignments. (Particularly one of the reasons I think the ethical alignments are squirrelly.)
The Nonagression Principle, which some consider to be a fundemental tenet of anarchocapitalistic thought, basically says you cannot initiate agression against someone's person or property, you can only react to someone else's initiation of aggression. The principle itself doesn't advocate anarchy, but that becomes a logical conclusion of it.
So, if a paladin holds strictly to his principle as a deontological stance, he would still be lawful, but an anarchist, wouldn't he? He could still follow the paladin code - the part about respecting legitimate authority would simply mean he only respects authority when the ruled specifically agree to be ruled, and everything else is illegitimate.
|
Forgive me, but what is "anarchocapitalism"?
Anarchy means "no rules". It means "your money / trade good has no value to me, I do not recognize any claim you have to it, and I will take what I am able to take." It means "no other rules apply". It's pretty much pure chaos.
Capitalism means "survival of the fittest, according to a certain definition of fit". I'm not going to go into details here, but I do want to point out that I don't believe capitalism is evil, its just an extension of human nature. It's all kinds of unfair, but certainly not evil, because it's possible to do great good within the system and still excel.
But Capitalism is definately "Neutral" in regards to law-chaos. It needs rules and mutual understanding and exchange rates and a willingness to work together. It thrives on Chaos, yes, but it requires controlled chaos, freedom within a certain set of rules.
Anarchy is pretty much the exact opposite of that.
I pretty much disagree with most of that. ;)
Anarchy means "no rules". It means "your money / trade good has no value to me, I do not recognize any claim you have to it, and I will take what I am able to take." It means "no other rules apply". It's pretty much pure chaos.
Anarchy isn't chaos, it is the absence of central hierarchical authority. Anarchy can develop spontaneous order... such as the order of the free market system.
Capitalism means "survival of the fittest, according to a certain definition of fit"
No, capitalism means the factors of production are privately owned, and you must get the owner to agree to let you use them, usually through trade. Labor is a factor of production owned by the worker - you must pay him a wage he agrees on to use it.
Capitalism as a philosophy is not good or evil, you are correct. People who are good, or evil, can thrive under capitalism. There are many things I disagree with about the school of thought surrounding anarchocapitalism, but the definitions of capitalism and anarchy aren't among them.
Given that a good person can be okay with capitalism, and a lawful person can hold to the ultimate deontological extreme of a principle, it seems quite reasonable to me that a paladin can be an anarchocapitalist. Or, depending on the principle, some other kind of anarchist.
|
|
eeeehh....
I'm not trying to pick a fight, here. I just...
Look.
To the average person, to average person on these boards, to the average person playing a paladin, "anarchy = chaos". period.
I realize there's some philosophical definition, and the word in a philosophical sense doesn't mean what it means in a general sense, but you really can't use the philosophical definition here and expect us to understand.
You are going to have to explain your idea in a way that us normal people can grasp, or we are going to disagree with you because your point of view has a funny and nonsensical name.
I know that's not fair, and I'm sorry. But that's your situation.
I apologize if I sounded hostile, I really wasn't. As you said, most people DO associate anarchy with chaos. So I responded with an attempt to clarify these terms, so that the discussion could be more meaningful.
If you a priori assume anarchy=chaos, then sure, it seems nonsensical and so there is no point in discussing it. Hence, the clarification of defining them from a philosophical standpoint.
|
|
Anarchy is associated with chaos simply because people aren't wired in the way required for the ideal to work. That, and the fact that a large list of crazies think anarchy means "free to destroy" more than anything else.
This.
Capitalism works because it's universally unfair. Communism is by far a more perfect system on paper, but it requires that every single person be good, honest, decent, and hard-working all the time. Humans are not wired that way, so the system fails.
Capitalism ends up fair precisely because it's so completely unfair - the most skilled get what they are able to take, which is unfair, but anyone, even the ones of the bottom, have the opportunity to rise to the top, because they can take from other people.
Without some sort of regulation, without something to provide basic rights and protect people who are stuck on the bottom from being trapped there by those currently on top, capitalism eats itself.
There needs to be something outside of capitalism which sets the rules and enforces them.
Also, communism doesn't work even on paper, even if everyone is a good little citizen. I'll spare you a paper on economic theory; suffice to say, you can either have pure communism (which does away with prices) or market communism (where the state sets the prices). In the former, there is no information on which to make economic decisions as to the allocation of resources; in the latter, the people's reaction to expected price changes will make those price changes invalid under the new state of affairs. You will always have shortages in some areas and surpluses in others.
|
|
hmm. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying.
Capitialism is unfair because it lets a few people acquire vastly more than they can reasonably use, and because it can create situations where many people are unable to get enough to live reasonably.
At the same time, capitalism is fair because, in order for anyone to keep what they've earned, they have to risk it - spend it, save it, invest it, there is risk and reward in every choice. It's fair because people who have little can gain a lot quickly if they are fast, clever, or just lucky. It's fair because people who have a lot can lose all of it rapidly if they make a mistake.
In pure capitalism, there's no protection, no safeguards. That is both hideously unfair and absolutely fair at the same time.
It's also why there needs to be another system with the power to provide limited protection. Limited ways to preserve some amount of wealth, limited ways to get out of unfair contracts, limited support for those the system has left destitute, etc.
|
|
hmm. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying.
Capitialism is unfair because it lets a few people acquire vastly more than they can reasonably use, and because it can create situations where many people are unable to get enough to live reasonably.
At the same time, capitalism is fair because, in order for anyone to keep what they've earned, they have to risk it - spend it, save it, invest it, there is risk and reward in every choice. It's fair because people who have little can gain a lot quickly if they are fast, clever, or just lucky. It's fair because people who have a lot can lose all of it rapidly if they make a mistake.
In pure capitalism, there's no protection, no safeguards. That is both hideously unfair and absolutely fair at the same time.
It's also why there needs to be another system with the power to provide limited protection. Limited ways to preserve some amount of wealth, limited ways to get out of unfair contracts, limited support for those the system has left destitute, etc.
When the few people acquire vast amounts of wealth, they invest that wealth and it becomes available for other people to make loans on in order to build up their own wealth.
This is a far more efficient and intelligent system than a giant government bureaucracy ever could be.
Did you miss my repeated use of the word limited?
A giant and bloated government bureaucracy is bad. No independent regulation at all is also bad.
|
|
I was in the process of adding this to my post, but there have been several replies to it, so here's the added comments:
From what I understand of capitalism, a perfect free market without any regulation or independent enforcement at all would devolve into either absolute chaos or total dictatorship.
Example: Why should I exchange my goods for yours when I can simply take them? Sure, you have guards, and if I fail you will do bad things to me, but that just encourages me to round up some buddies, jump you all at once, split the spoils, and go our separate ways. Your goods will always be worth more than your protection, so enough of us will make taking a net gain on our side even with the risk.
Your competition doesn't have any inventive to help you, not at first. By the time this has happened enough for them to start protecting each other, there will be enough people like me that it's not possible to stop all of us. End result is total chaos.
Or, your competition is able to secure things using the most draconian measures available. They can't tone these down, because it will just happen again. End result is a police state.
Truthfully, BobChuck, I feel that you have arrived at the right conclusion with the wrong premises. I'm not so sure that a pure free market would devolve into chaos - but I don't care for the kind of order it would likely turn into. You are absolutely correct that a government is needed to do such things as enforce fair contracts and protect property rights.
Everyone has something to trade to get what they want... even if it is just their time.
Edit: Ah! Ninja'd.
LT, there is one, and only one, way to ensure limited government. Freedom of immigration and emigration. If you can always move to a better country, countries have to compete for taxpayers. :D
Nobody can agree on what the paladin code means.
Nobody can agree on what "lawful" means.
Nobody can agree on what "anarchism" means.
I think you're overstating the case, I expect this thread to come to an agreement about the definition of capitalism any minute now.
No need to argue about whether we've seen a communist society, the answer is a clear no. However, every attempt at communism have made noticeable progress on the terrain of fairness. Even the so-called socialist countries, like the USSR or Cuba, did - but that doesn't say anything about the quality of life and the extent of the different forms of oppression under those systems. So, among the "realistic governements" (systems would be a better word), capitalism as a whole loses, and some forms of capitalism lose to others, but fairness isn't the most important feature of a society.
And no, capitalism doesn't become fair because it's completely unfair. It doesn't either necessarily provide rights and protects people. It protects some people, and leave others on their own. One could consider than being born in a trailer park doesn't prevent from having a realistic opportunity to get out. But being born in a poor bangladeshi family pretty much does, and those are part of the same capitalist system.
On OP's points, first I must say that anarchocapitalism strikes me as wishful thinking. Capitalism supposes private property, as you noted. It also supposes accumulation of capital as a driving force - if not then it becomes a horribly suboptimal system. So there will be the poor and the rich. Napoleon is supposed to have said that religion would be enough to keep the former from killing the latter, but then he organized an effective legal and penal system. Without religion and without judges and cops and prison guards, private property (or at least trade) can't endure. With those, it's not anarchy.
Many of the anarchocapitalists I've talked to argued that private security will do the trick. But it's still not anarchy, even though their efficiency and loyalty to their would-be employer is uncertain at best.
But a consistent anarchist paladin (not a capitalist) can exist, i think. It depends on what does the lawful alignement means to you, or in your setting. The words law and chaos are not opposites, so that leaves you some space to intepret what the two opposite alignements are.
Anarchy as a political project is "the order without the power". So if Law in you setting doesn't mean actual law, but order as opposite to chaos, it's ok for anarchist paladins. He should just refrain from imposing his take on what's good through cleaves and smites. And he should want to try and subvert all authorities, even his god's, except if in your setting paladins can get power from concepts.
But in the standard DnD setting, Law can't go without a power, and chaos is clearly stated as the opposite of order. There's a Paladin of freedom class in a 3.5 splat, but I never read its fluff. In this standard setting I would make real-life anarchists neutral good, so no paladins.
No, a paladin cannot be an anarchist.
"Being true to your own set of rules" is not the definition of Lawful. Furthermore, a paladin, my necessity, requires a deity/power. That deity doesn't grant abilities because a character has been true to the character's set of rules; the deity grants power because the paladin is true to IT's set of rules.
Anarchy, in D&D terms, is equated to Chaos. Under "Chaotic" in the alignment system, the individual is subservient to none, while "Lawful" requires the individual be subservient to Greater (whatever that greater might be: Deity, Good, King, etc.).
Have you ever actually been to Russia? I have. And let me tell you the people I talked to had nothing but praise to say about all the fairness under the communist government - if, by "praise", one means "spent hours talking about how unfair and suck-y it was".
There's no need to go to russia to know how the income differential evolved during the last century.
I suspect that the people you talked to were not as impartial or as clear as the statistics they're no longer supposed to be. The USSR was quite sucky, but certainly not more unfair than capitalist russia.
No, it does not. I quoted what the book has to say on lawful/chaos then tied it into how it works with that belief for a paladin. You are the one equating anarchy to chaos. This belief just implies an alternative version of order/authority. The book equated lawful to order, tradition, authority, ect. Not subservience.No, a paladin cannot be an anarchist.
"Being true to your own set of rules" is not the definition of Lawful. Furthermore, a paladin, my necessity, requires a deity/power. That deity doesn't grant abilities because a character has been true to the character's set of rules; the deity grants power because the paladin is true to IT's set of rules.
Anarchy, in D&D terms, is equated to Chaos. Under "Chaotic" in the alignment system, the individual is subservient to none, while "Lawful" requires the individual be subservient to Greater (whatever that greater might be: Deity, Good, King, etc.).
A paladin cannot be an anarchist. In your example, the lawful character is subservient to order/tradition/authority.
I will try to address the question. XD
A paladin is loyal to his deity, above all else, and obeying and enforcing that deity's code.
He might be an anarchist in regard to "worldly" governments, and view them as having no authority over him, but lawful in adhering to his own code.
Christian anarchists might see the world that way. They may give a lot of authority to biblical law, but reject the idea that governments can tell them what to do by "playing God" with their liberties.
Such a paladin might "go along to get along" in whatever society he's in, but might object to being taxed by a government he doesn't recognize, and go all John Galt on they a$$.
I'm not aware of any PF/DnD deities that preach that dogma, but I don't know them all.
He can be lawful and good, but define law differently than others around him. Doable, I think, but it's a stretch.
A "typical" paladin would most likely obey all the laws of an area, as long as he thought they were just.
The book equated lawful to order, tradition, authority, ect. Not subservience.
Anarchy means no authority.
Such a paladin might "go along to get along" in whatever society he's in, but might object to being taxed by a government he doesn't recognize, and go all John Galt on they a$$.
He'll take his productivity away from them?
Okay, I'm joking a bit. Or a lot.
Bonus points for including a reference to John Galt.
In the political sense, the sense that matters for an anarchist, it rules out every kind of authority, not only governements. "Neither God, nor Caesar, nor tribune."
I think that refers to religion. Someone can believe in a supreme deity and still be an anarchist, they would simply hold no mortal authority as legitimate. This would include a church, since that is a collection of mortals. Further, even an anarchist will agree that people can choose to accept someone's authority, which is what the paladin does. He might not recognize his deity's right to rule him, but rather is granting that deity the privelege of doing so.
No. Someone who accepts only a divinity's authority would be... a thearchist, I guess.
For an anarchist, the origin of the authority doesn't matter, only its destination. Even authority granted by its subjects is to be subverted; else anarchists would be democrats.
The most that paladin would grant his god is an attentive ear, as he does with any being who has something interesting to say.
I'm not so sure that a pure free market would devolve into chaos - but I don't care for the kind of order it would likely turn into.
I agree with you, insofar as the monopolists that ended up dominating the devolved system would exercise their ultimately unassailable power excluding competition and maintaining the masses' dependence.
and here's the counter quote:
"it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried"
I'm not sure that's good enough for me. Call me a perfectionist...
There is no perfect system. There is no perfect combination of systems.
[citation needed]
Smacks of hubris to assume (not that you did, but some do) that modern society is the pinnacle of human social evolution, considering how barbaric we view those societies which came before us.
Zo
You can of course have a holy freedom fighter or revive one of the 3.5 reworked Paladins but I think the Pathfinder Paladin is pretty clear. Lawful Good, with Lawful Good tendencies, and a distinct role to play in exemplifying Lawful Good.
This doesn't make anarchists any less noble, interesting, or viable for a game world but they cannot be core Paladins.
Sigurd
so here is the definition of the word anarchist, as by dictionary.com:
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
so this would be how a paladin is explained? an anti-paladin maybe. this IS NOT a paladin. they cannot be an anarchist.
oh, buy the way, thanx for the economics lesson xD