Roderick’s New Argument (posted 3 December 2003)
Roderick has a new argument for anarchism. Here’s how it goes:
- If anybody should rule, philosophers should.
- But philosophers should not rule.
- Therefore, nobody should rule.
Any philosopher who denies (1) is excessively timid; any philosopher who denies (2) is excessively bold. Hence moderation demands assent to the conclusion.
It’s worth noting that Roderick’s argument also succeeds in combining the thesis embodied in uncritical democracy (2) with the antithesis embodied in Platonic totalitarianism (1). Thus anarchism is the dialectical synthesis of two genuine insights which are disastrous when taken out of context. Maybe this will convince Chris Sciabarra to be an anarchist again…
Replies to Roderick’s New Argument (0 so far…)