Anarchism means there is no unjustified authority.
That is a tautology. Who provides the justification and who gave them that authority. The king? The nobles? The learned? The majority? The masses? The individual?
The problem with power is it is self justifying. If you have power you can justify anything, and if you do not, you exist at the mercy of those that do. One would think the most rational behavior would be to give those power that want it least (such as anarchists), but human psychology shows that significant portions of humanity want hierarchies and will gladly give their power to put a dictator/king into power.
In this statement Noam manages to stick his head so far up his own ass that you can see his face inside his mouth...
> And if they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by
By fucking what. Oh yes, by someone/something/some group with power. If you have the power to do this, you have the same power as a brutal dictator. If you have power to tear down these non-self justifying systems, you can use any fucking justification you want to tear it down. At the end of the day power is power. You just hope this power is wielded towards more freedom, but you're just a single orator away from tyranny.
By the workers, not the owners of capital. That is justified authority.
Workers rights are just a bullshit statement of the same classification as 'landowner rights'. Human rights should be paramount regardless if you have a job or not.
But to have these rights, you must organize and concentrate this power or you'll just be scattered by the owners of capital that have already concentrated their power highly effectively.
I would have assumed at least your insults would have been consistent with the article.
The other is that “something more free” is coupled with something “more just”, and that that is also better than something which is less justified. The implication here would be that adding more freedom is always more just than something “unjustified”. I don’t think this logically holds, either.
In the case of governments, it's the population. Not political philosophers.
The "population" justified the Iranian Revolution handing authority to the Ayatollah and the IRGC. Is Iran a model of the anarchic state?
In the workplace, it's the workers who should have all of the decision making.
I think most reasonable people would accept this line of thinking without problem.