Archists vs. Anarchists

Most people claim they aren't authoritarian, yet they consistently criticize anti-authoritarian stances. This apparent contradiction reveals an important implicit tension: most individuals hold deeply archist assumptions without explicitly acknowledging them.

To clearly identify this tension, we introduce concise terminology:

• Archist: Individuals or views implicitly or explicitly supporting special rights or privileges for the State (or authority structures).

• Anarchist: Individuals or views opposing special rights or privileges for the State, insisting instead that all ethical legitimacy derives exclusively from individual rights.

Archist thinking typically involves assumptions such as:

• The State needs special rights to maintain law, order, and social stability.

• Without these privileges (e.g., coercion, monopoly on force, immunity from accountability), society risks devolving into chaos.

Anarchist thinking counters by asserting:

• Ethical rules must apply symmetrically; the State has no moral privileges above individual rights.

• Granting special rights inherently distorts justice, incentivizes abuse, and reduces individual autonomy.

Can this fundamental disagreement be resolved logically or empirically?

Logical clarity can expose internal contradictions:

• Archist positions must justify ethical asymmetry logically.

• Anarchist critiques can highlight logical inconsistencies inherent in state privileges ("Why can the State ethically coerce, but individuals cannot?").

Empirical evidence can test real-world outcomes:

• Historical comparisons between archist and less archist societies.

• Socioeconomic data on stability, corruption, individual prosperity, and flourishing.

However, logic and empirical evidence alone can't fully resolve the disagreement. The heart of the matter is axiomatic:

• Archists prioritize collective order and stability, accepting the risk of injustice and ethical inconsistency.

• Anarchists prioritize individual autonomy and ethical consistency, accepting potential instability as a necessary cost.

The value of explicitly exposing these hidden assumptions and fundamental disagreements cannot be overstated:

• It clarifies actual points of conflict, reducing superficial debates.

• It promotes intellectual honesty and consistency.

• It facilitates constructive dialogue and pragmatic solutions.

Ultimately, clearly revealing the fundamental assumptions underlying archist vs. anarchist perspectives enables more meaningful conversations, clearer understanding, and genuine intellectual progress—even if the axiomatic disagreements persist.