Roberta comes clean with the reason she believes in Anarchy, and I can now make a lot of sense of the whole thing, because I see the perspective a bit more clearly.

Generally:

About anarchy: it’s where you live. Yes, you. Right now. Unless you’re in jail or the military, unless there’s a police officer following you around everywhere all the time to ensure you Refrain From Smoking and neither speed nor spit where prohibited by law, the only real control over what you do and say is you.

Well, yes and no. You ultimately control what you do, of course, but not in the way Roberta opines.

You are the boss of you and I suspect the reason you have not robbed or killed or cheated anyone today isn’t that there is some law against it but because you have made the moral choice not to do so; in fact, if you’re like most people, you find even pondering those actions repugnant.

This, then is the crux of our disagreement, and most of it is clear to me, now, as is Roberta’s take on the subject.

The fear of retribution is the predominant reason people don’t rob or kill or cheat. Having dealt with people all my life in every walk of life, I can safely say that if I have met a single person guided by internal morals only, it must be Roberta. And this is not sarcasm on my part- I honestly believe this is true. It explains a great number of things to me.

Because I know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that if I were to connect an accurate polygraph to any human being I know, and said “if you knew that you could kill X and get away with it completely, with no retribution of any kind” the honest answer would be “yes” (assuming “x” is a person or persons who the subject finds specifically deplorable) I know this because I have seen it. I have been in prisons, I have been in large corporations, I have travelled from the arctic circle to south america, and no matter where I go, there are people who need their assers kicked, and people anxious to do the kicking, and the only thing that stops them from doing so is the fear of retribution.

This is demonstrably true because where the fear of retribution has been removed from the equation, people kill at will. It’s always been like that. it’s also the case that people can develop such rage or insanity that their fear of retribution is overpowered by their need to commit an act.

Think for a moment, yourself. Look at our current government. Look, for instance, at Rod Blowdryavitch. if there were ever a human being who needed to have his ass kicked, it’s him. And an awful lot of us would like to do the kicking. The Rule of Law prevents this from happening by offering disincentives. Those same disincentives help prevent the rest of us from that same asskicking, whether we deserve it or not.

We must use the rule of law to punish those we think deserve it. The rule of law (theoretically) prevents us from punishing those who do not deserve it.

Is this perfect or efficient? Absolutely not.

The alternative is precisely as Roberta describes- except without the restraint that she describes. We do NOT avoid committing crime because we are basically good people, and this is a demonstrable fact. All you have to do is visit a prison. Or listen in on a board meeting at a bank. Or watch an advertising agency work. Or follow someone home from work every day.

Each of us is capable of evil- and we may not even consider it evil! Looking at the Chicago Political machine, it’s almost a moral IMPERATIVE to do something about it. And as much as thousands or perhaps millions want to do something about it, they will not.

I’m not here trying to prove Roberta wrong. For her, the explanation she gives works, and if it works for her, that’s wonderful. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting her twice and briefly corresponding with her, and the bottomline is, she is as genuine and as decent a person as she seems to be, and I would neither be rude to her nor argue with her, nor will I ever further discuss this on her site. Roberta, if you want to discuss this here I would be glad to, and you will be treated with every respect due you.

People tend to view the world through their eyes. It’s very hard to have any other perspective. I have tried very hard to understand how other people see things, and the post by Roberta has shone a powerful light on her views, which i now believe I understand. I disagree with them, because I think I’ve seen a different world than she has, and following my own rules based on the world I see, has never let me down. I belabor this point (because I would have dropped it a LONG time ago, I have a pretty short attention span) because I look at her views as innocent, and as an opportunity for great danger to her.

I emailed this to the lady in question, because I would not be rude to her at gunpoint. I told her if she wanted me to drop the subject I would, and not click ‘Publish’.

Here was her very ladylike response.

“I think it is an excellent refutation and one that shines a light on your viewpoint, Og. I see no reason why you should not post it — and you can quote everything I have written right up to the end of this sentence.”

She went on to make it clear that she and I are on the same page on a BUCKET of issues. maybe we just look at them from different perspectives, like two observers of the same constellation from different solar systems. She feels that people are decent, and can be trusted. I’ve seen an awful lot in my life, and even looking at the best most people can be, I don’t believe people can be trusted. Or maybe she just yearns for decency, and I yearn to tune people up.

This- incidentally- is how to have a civil discussion on the subject.