Introduction
At present, one of the chief pillars of government is popular belief in democracy. I would argue it is a fraudulent veneer of legitimacy for government tyranny, but we all learned in school how important elections and legislative assemblies are to society. Entertainment and news media alike reinforce this perception. Simply attacking democracy tends to go nowhere. Even questioning the idea is deemed borderline heresy, if not outright treason.
Socrates
According to Greek philosopher Plato, his mentor Socrates professed to know nothing, and used pointed questions to dismantle the pretended wisdom of others, revealing the emptiness behind their posturing.
The Greek political class didn't like Socrates, so they charged him with impiety and corrupting the youth, then sentenced him to death by poison. It was all quite democratic, too, according to Athenian standards.
We can use his tool of probing questions to undermine faith in the State, but challenging the civil religion of today can be almost as dangerous as it was in Athens some two and a half millennia ago
The education system, media, and cultural traditions all coordinate to inculcate a belief in political legitimacy. Government officials and their offices are supposed to be afforded some measure of respect, regardless of partisan leanings or philosophical disputes. Flags, anthems, and holidays are all held sacred, or at least given ceremonial reverence.
An anarchist faces an uphill battle. Before people are willing to reject political authority, they must be persuaded it is illegitimate. How can we peel away the veneer and help them see the truth?
Why Dialogue?
I understand the desire to do something, but even anarchists can be swayed by the politician's syllogism:
- We must do something.
- This is something.
- Therefore, we must do this.
I suspect this fallacy fuels many examples of propaganda of the deed, but poorly chosen action is often more destructive than inaction. Perhaps this is just my superficial understanding of Taoist philosophy creeping in, but doing "nothing" can do more than you might think.
I advocate rational discourse for persuasion as a more powerful tool. You may never persuade your opponent, but you can present a way for onlookers to reconsider their beliefs. Formal academic debate is often structured around swaying the audience, not the opposing interlocutor. When arguing informally on social media, keep this same principle in mind. The audience is not in a defensive posture. They can take their time to weigh arguments without the pressure of debate or the passion of conflict.
Therefore, be civil, rational, and calm. Ask questions designed to uncover doublethink and reveal cognitive dissonance, but always remember to attack the argument instead of the person making it. I try to maintain a degree of humility when I discuss contentious topics, not that I always succeed by any means. I was once deeply influenced by nationalism and a belief in political legitimacy. That can help me lead others through the wilderness of propaganda, too, if they wish to follow.
Democratic Chestnuts¹
Every time I raise any questions against the status quo, at least one of the following responses is inevitable. Here also are some questions I have asked in response.
"If you don't vote, you can't complain."
How is this not a false choice fallacy as a political system?
I consented to neither the outcome nor the system, so why can I not complain?
"People fought and died for your right to vote!"
- People have fought and died for many causes throughout history. Why should this sanctify anything?
"Let your voice be heard this election day!"
How does voting make my voice heard when I am but one of millions?
How does a popularity contest prove anything?
"We can't trust people to govern themselves!"
If people can't govern themselves, how can some people be fit to govern others?
How can we trust these people who you claim are so incompetent to also wisely select a government over themselves?
"Look, you are represented, whether you like it or not!"
How can these officials represent all of us when we are so diverse as individuals?
How can a politician represent those who voted against them, did not vote, or could not vote?
Where is the agent/principal relationship even between the elected officials and those who voted for them, especially when ballots are secret?
Conclusion
I don't guarantee any of these questions will convince anyone, but you can plant the seed. Like the Biblical Parable of the Sower, should that seed land in the right soil, it will grow in its own time and a new anarchist will blossom. We must also find and encourage the remnant, as Albert Jay Nock described it. We can't change the world, but we can change minds and find allies if we use reason and compassion. Arguing on the internet need not be a waste of time.
Of course, I could be wrong myself. Feel free to ask about any of my own positions, too.
- Chestnut, sense 6b: "something (such as a musical piece or a saying) repeated to the point of staleness"
