Dismatling Anarchism

*Edit - I spelled "dismantling" incorrectly.

I recently wrote this, can anyone give me feedback?

A proper government is an instrument of the people (society), not an establishment that uses the people (society) as instruments.

To be presented as an idea, anarchism must feed off of the corruption in past, present, and (most likely) future governments. If the given governments did not violate their role to society and did not initiate force on the population in so many ways, the ideas of anarchy would not be able to be validated.

The most popular argument against anarchism is a misinformed one. None of the anarchists I've met have presented an idea of violence and disorder, or chaos. The common anarchist belief is that hierarchy should not exist and exists through the government in society. Due to corruption, corporate business, and classism, hierarchy exists not only through government, but also in media, in regards to standard of living, and in the workplace.

To claim hierarchy should not exist in the workplace, though, should lead one to simply staying unemployed. An employer is running their own business. Their hiring you to work for them means you've got to fit their criteria, or you're not going to be a part of their business. Everyone has a right to their own business endeavors. No one should be obligated to hire anyone if they do not adequately perform a job. In the case people cannot get hired, they should be able to use their own individual effort to succeed and achieve happiness. For most anarchists, unemployment is barely an obstacle to living. Many I have known have been deeply involved in DIY living.

Government must exist to protect laws, the environment, and individual rights. Taxation, military draft, and the idea of disarming a population are initiations of force by the government. A government separate from economics is just as good as one separate from religion.

Anarchy refutes modern economics, and capitalism. Instead, it claims no one owns anything because private property is part of capitalism. The idea that people are not entitled to private property is wrong. Being able to have possessions, a home, food, and clothing to keep as your own is part of being protected by individual rights. Capitalism provides this outlet to people. Anarchy is socialism - forcefully imposed economics that lead to communism, and communal ownership of everything.

Anarchy in practice is socialism in regards to economics. Socialism is a political system that denies the validity of property rights. Instead, it claims that all property is communally owned (see market anarchism). Anarchists will claim the idea of anarchy refutes political systems, though in practice an anarchist market is socialism. It is collectivism. Everyone is forced to share property, possessions, and forfeit privacy. Some might argue no one under an anarchist system would force ideas on anyone else. The again, what is there to support this argument? An honor system put into play by the people?

Due to the fact that there is no government, there is no room left open for any regulation of economics, so that a working or even moderate form of socialism could be implemented. Since there is no room for political or governing institutions, this sloppy form of socialism would be void of infrastructure and full of mismanagement.

Anarchists use corrupt corporations and the failures of governments (past and present) to support their argument against the establishment. For example, companies that pay workers slave labor wages in sweatshop conditions (the environment that spawned communism).These companies are being blamed, but why? The reason McDonald's, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and others are rich and powerful is because consumers made the decision to support the company. If businesses and governments are to be deemed evil, then the people who have collectively created them should be blamed as individuals. Arguing against business establishments with millions of people is like arguing against a different, rival collective. How could so many individuals even be grouped into a collective?

Like communism, anarchy is a pipe-dream system of society. Anarchy can and has been put into practice by small, self governing groups of people. Those who live the collectivist or anarchist lifestyle will present their success as an argument for anarchism. Communal and cooperative living in regards to the six billion people on the planet is fantasy. The idea that crime, commerce, and infrastructure would be voluntarily designed and maintained by people is beyond wishful thinking.

The idea of a crime free, communal society is simply not rational. To claim "There would be no gangs of looters" is a claim not within reason. There are gangs of looters and criminals today, with welfare readily available and outlets to survive around most corners. Crime would only increase with the abolition of laws. Without laws, human beings have no boundaries of respect and tolerance set for one another. Laws are to be decided by groups of people, but what group and how big? The idea of a local or small governing group arising under the anarchist systems refutes the original idea of anarchy - no government.

Anarchy in practice is confusion, collectivism, and primitive. The idea that society cannot elect it's own local, state, and/or federal leaders to represent them is a way to dishearten the people and their influence in their own government. Working to achieve a proper government will provide better results then working to abolish infrastructure and current self governing groups or bodies.

(Edited by Dustin
on 11/18, 12:46pm)

Post 1

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 4:18pm

Dustin,

Not all anarchists are anti-capitalists. My gripe with anarcho-capitalists is they make an assumption that "somehow" human nature will change "if only" a capitalist based anarchy were to be in place. Sort of a "Q: can't we all just get along?" A: "Yes, if society were anarcho-capitalist" point of view. It is idealistic rather than realistic. They use market theory to support their assertions but a overly idealized view of markets. People will literally get away with whatever they think they can get away with in nearly every situation. I would hate to deal with someone who was thinking that perhaps his enforcement agency could whip my enforcement agency.

Of course, government "players" will get away with whatever they can get away with as well. But I'd rather spend my time trying to limit and control one agency than many.

Post 2

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 10:10am

Anarchy has two meanings, an absence of rules or an absence of rulers. The Anarcho-Capitalists are definitely of that second type and not of the first type.

Government may also be said to have two meanings, a set of rules (laws) or a group of rulers (ruling class). Most often the term means both - and in very generous quantities.

Capitalism also has two popular meanings, free-trade with private property, or fascism (aka mercantilism, state corporatism, mixed economy, the American economic system).

I am an Anarcho-Capitalist (though I dislike the term, I have found no better). By this I mean that liberty and property rights for all are my primary political values. I do not recognize the right or wisdom of "representation" or of any monopoly on the use of force. I am opposed to all legal authority, and approve of only legal equality.

Humans need an agreed-upon set of rules (laws) to live by. But they do not need to divide themselves into two classes - a ruling class and a ruled class.

Here is a sample set of beginning rules that I would offer as a start to civilization. I am here defining civilization as the absence of institutional evil - the absence of a ruling class of individuals - the absence of what is now usually called government.

1. no human shall do harm to another human who is harmless

2. all individuals have an equal right of self-defense

3. all laws apply equally to all individual human beings

4. all individuals have an equal right to enforce all laws - no group or individual has a right to a monopoly on the use of force

5. all individuals have a right to vote on all laws

6. voting on any future laws must be entirely public so that everyone may know how everyone else votes - no secret ballots

7. no one may represent anyone who does not individually choose that representative

8. No future law can contradict any of these first laws. No law may weaken or create exceptions to these first laws

Civilized people also need further laws to set procedures for trials, for contract enforcement, and for land ownership, but these issues have been well-solved for centuries, dating back to common-law.

With these rules in practice, there would be no legalized taxation (theft), conscription (slavery), central banking (counterfeiting), economic regulation (aggression), government employees (thieves), police, soldiers, or licensed professionals (monopolists). No doctors, lawyers, contractors, or pilots would be prevented from practicing their arts for lack of permission by licensing authorities. There would be no licensing authorities

To summarize, civilization only needs a very short list of permanent rules - easily understood and memorized by a ten-year-old. It does not need a ruling class or ongoing legislation.

It seems to me that nearly everyone who objects to the Anarcho-Capitalist view, does so by insisting (at least implicitly) that a lack of a ruling class necessarily results in a lack of rules. This is clearly not the case. If there are three of us, we do not need to elect one of us as a ruler over two of us. We need simply to agree on the fundamental first rule of morality - do not harm the harmless. Where morality is generally recognized, institutions are unnecessary. Where morality is generally ignored, institutions won�t help, and in fact, always amplify the immorality.

John Howard

Post 3

Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 7:29pm

Mr. Howard,

"But they do not need to divide themselves into two classes - a ruling class and a ruled class."

There is not a ruling class in the U.S. No one is above the law.

"It seems to me that nearly everyone who objects to the Anarcho-Capitalist view, does so by insisting (at least implicitly) that a lack of a ruling class necessarily results in a lack of rules."

I certainly have not and do not insist that a lack of government would mean a lack of rules. In an a-c world there would be no end to rules and also no end to entities, individuals and groups, trying to enforce them. Your simple, idealistic, set of rules would have a thousand interpretations for each one and no single agency for adjudicating the differences. I see chaos and the inability to plan and uncertainty of the risks of new ventures.

I certainly do not believe our present government is perfect. Far from it. But constitutional democracies have produced the most successful cultures, including large numbers of flourishing individuals, for the most part free to act as they please for virtually all of their lives outside of government. You will have to demonstrate incremental steps from where we are to something better to get my attention.

Post 4

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 3:08am

Your simple, idealistic, set of rules would have a thousand interpretations for each one and no single agency for adjudicating the differences.

Emphasis above mine.

Why wouldn't these same set of rules be interpreted differently by every congressman, judge, and voter in the land? In practice, they would! How does having a single agency solve that problem? It doesn't. That agency could interpret and enforce the law correctly, or it could not. The fact that it holds a monopoly does not in and of itself solve anything. Also, I fail to see what is so bad about the rules Mr. Howard provided being 'simple' or 'idealistic'? Would his laws be better if they were more complex?

Post 5

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 7:24am

John Howard,

A set of rules in which the billions of the people on the planet live by accordingly without dispute is a pipe-dream. I get the feeling that the world you propose with Anarcho-Capitalism is a dismantling of infrastructure and a step backwards to primitive collectivization and organization.

Post 6

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 9:34am

A set of rules in which the billions of the people on the planet live by accordingly without dispute is a pipe-dream.

Where did he say there would be no disputes?

Post 7

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 9:36am

To claim hierarchy should not exist in the workplace, though, should lead one to simply staying unemployed.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You have a choice on whether or not to work. Employee/employer relationships are voluntary, government relationships are not.

Post 8

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 9:38am

Instead, it claims that all property is communally owned (see market anarchism). Anarchists will claim the idea of anarchy refutes political systems, though in practice an anarchist market is socialism. It is collectivism. Everyone is forced to share property, possessions, and forfeit privacy. Some might argue no one under an anarchist system would force ideas on anyone else. The again, what is there to support this argument? An honor system put into play by the people?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Post 9

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 8:03am

Mr. Erickson writes that since no one is above the law, there is no ruling class. This is clearly untrue. The ruling class are those who make and enforce the laws. They are only some and not all of the population. One of the many scandals of current government (from its beginning) is that they do, in fact, make laws that apply to all but themselves or to only themselves. There very establishment is the perfect example.

He writes that under Anarcho-Capitalism as I propose it, there would be no end to rules. This is precisely the situation we have now under our present system. I would argue that my rule # 3, if put into practice, would preclude large numbers of rules.  The large quantity of rules results from the establishment of rulers - those who have authority over others. Eliminating such a class of people eliminates the desire for many rules.

He writes that my rules would have a thousand interpretations. This objection applies to our current situation far more than to what I propose. He says he foresees chaos and the inability to plan. I see them now - in the present system that he is defending. Obviously, the fewer and more permanent the rules, the less confusion and chaos.

He objects that there would be no single agency to adjudicate differences. There isn't now. The ruling class is hardly a single agency - it is a squabbling network of gangsters clawing for the power that no one should have. Our millions of laws are re-interpreted in millions of court cases constantly. The backlog is horrific and the prisons are full. Jury nullification was originally a treasured part of our system and in some states remains so. What is needed is not a single agency (dictator), but a single, simple, brief, idealistic body of rules easily grasped by everyone.

He suggests that constitutional democracies have produced the most successful cultures to date. Considering the wars, the prison populations, the corruption and the percentage of wealth that flows to the ruling class through the extortion racket of taxation, it strikes me as odd to defend such a system against suggestions for more liberty and more equality.

Mr. Erickson writes that in order to get his attention, I will have to show him how to get from where we are to something better. That, however, is a later question. It is first necessary for him to show me a moral justification for the coerced inequality and monopoly (similar concepts) that he now favors, lest he lose my attention.  Getting to the right system is easy. Choose it and live by it. Defend against those who don't.

Making horrific predictions about a simple just system while ignoring that all of those predictions have already come true about the complex and unjust system he favors, makes for an exceedingly strange argument.

John Howard

Post 10

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 8:06pm

So if everyone has a right to enforce the law, and someone in the neighborhood is accused of a crime, does that person have to submit to the entire neighborhood's jurisdiction? Who decides who gets to enforce the law? What if we have different ideas of the proper punishment or even establishment of guilt or innocence? That does not seem possible to work. 1,2, and 3 seem fine. Number 4 is not workable because of conflict resolution - what if 3 groups or even single individuals feel differently about a crime? One says innocent, the other guilty and should pay a fine and the third guilty and put in jail - who decides? 5 is reasonable and essentially in place to an extent, as are 1,2, and 3 already. I readily agree that all sorts of things are laws that should not be, but that is not the way the original constitution was meant to be, so why would this be any different after a few centuries?

Post 11

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 9:35pm

Mr. Howard,

"The ruling class are those who make and enforce the laws."

Those who make the laws are elected. Enforcement is a job which people are hired under a strict rule of conduct to do. How would this be different under an anarcho-capitalist system? Would you not have elected representatives? Would your enforcement agencies not have employees? And I'm assuming they would be human beings, same mixed bag as we have now?

"That, however, is a later question. It is first necessary for him to show me a moral justification for the coerced inequality and monopoly (similar concepts) that he now favors, lest he lose my attention."

My moral justification is self defense on a large scale, a stable society where large numbers of people can live creative productive lives and flourish without the constant threat of force hanging over their heads. I don't know if you've noticed, but it is possible to live a peaceful life in this country. Our taxes are a transaction cost, but less dear than the cost of living without a rule of law and a means to enforce it equally.

"Getting to the right system is easy. Choose it and live by it."

Easy to say.

"Defend against those who don't."

Also easy to say.

Let me be frank, you are simply posing as a superior moral being with no clear idea whatsoever of what you are saying. You suppose yourself to be more clever and morally perfect because of your strict adherence to "NIOF" when you've neglected the simple fact of reality that actions speak louder that words. You have mistaken passivity for morality when in reality only actions can be moral or not.

Post 12

Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:44pm

Excellent points, Kurt! I sanctioned your Post #10, and await Mr. Howard's response.

Hi, John! Good to see you back among the living, having descended from the nether worlds of cyberspace to once again honor us with your elegant prose!

How's your art these days, and the Sonoma wineries? I'm not much of a wine drinker, but I wish they'd produce Muscatel wine, and Muscat grape juice as well, which I love. Unfortunately, the muscat grapes don't grow well in the Central Valley, as it simply isn't hot and humid enough for them (if you can believe that). These grapes can only be grown successfully in the Southeastern parts of the United States.

Who here likes Muscatel wine or Muscat grape juice?

- Bill

Post 13

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 4:22am

Actually, while the muscatel grapes are fine, I like the scuppernong grape wine - the wine of Thomas Jefferson...

Post 14

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 5:07am

What if we have different ideas of the proper punishment or even establishment of guilt or innocence?

You mean we don't have that now? Kurt, what is the proper sentence for one convicted of auto theft? How about beating your wife? Hypothetically, let's say you propose a sentence of 25 years for auto theft. Is 24 years objectively wrong? What about 26 years? What factors play into that? Does having a monopoly on trials and sentencing mean that judges and juries will automatically reach the correct conclusions? What about people who are convicted soley on the basis of circumstantial evidence? Is that just? What about the variances in the justice systems of different states? Should we abolish state laws and make everything federal? After all, if there is one objectively right way to do things, then the differences among states are an injustice. And for that matter the differences in laws between countries. The truth is that the establishment of guilt or innocence is not an open and shut case. To be sure, a jury of 12 people make a decision, and the government enforces it. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the right decision (and of course it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong). Innocent people have spent many years in jail.

On the flip side of this... these same problems could exist in an anarchist system of justice. So my point is, having a monopoly does not automatically ensure justice. So which is better?

Those who make the laws are elected. Enforcement is a job which people are
hired under a strict rule of conduct to do. How would this be different under an anarcho-capitalist system? Would you not have elected representatives?

The objectivist arguments against every other government institution rely on the idea that the market reacts quicker to demand then a bureaucracy can ever hope to, right? Either way, the laws, just or not, follow what the public wants. In an ideal world, politicians wouldn't promise to pass tougher sentencing laws for this or that just to get elected, but that is the reality.

Again, an anarchist system would have the same problems. The underlying philosophy of the general populace would drive policy in both situations. I would think that anarchist society would be more volatile (easier to change), which could be bad, or could be good, depending on which way the pendulum was swinging.

As I see a coervive monopoly on force to be an initiation of force in and of itself, I tend to favor anarchism, although I wouldn't envision such a society to be perfect (but then we Objectivists are not pragmatists, right!?!)

Post 15

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 6:48am

Of course we can't guarantee being correct all the time, but by establishing who decides through jurisdictions (the various courts) and legal systems (judges, juries) we determine who does so, where, and how. Under anarchism, this is impossible to do, therefore it either will not get done or will lead to conflict - this is not an improvement over the current system. I can think of many ways to improve the system, and I am sure so can you, and so can others. However, allowing "anyone the right to enforce the law" is NOT an improvement at all. How can it be?

Post 16

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 10:04am

Jonathan wrote,

As I see a coervive monopoly on force to be an initiation of force in and of itself, I tend to favor anarchism, although I wouldn't envision such a society to be perfect (but then we Objectivists are not pragmatists, right!?!)

What do you mean by "coercive" in this context? If you simply mean the initiation of force, then your point is tautological, since, in that case, every "coercive" monopoly would involve the initiation of force, by definition. The real question is, is every monopoly on force coercive? Does every monopoly on force involve the initiation of force? The answer is, no. A monopoly on force can, and should, be restricted to the use of defensive or retaliatory force. If a government forcibly prevents a lynch mob from executing a suspected murderer, is it initiating force against the lynch mob? No, it's simply defending the right of the accused to a fair trial. Its use of force in this case is defensive or retaliatory, not initiatory.

Indeed, for the government to allow each and every individual the right to enforce his own view of justice -- his own view of what constitutes retaliatory force -- is to abdicate its own right to do so. Since the government -- or any agency of retaliatory force -- must decide what constitutes appropriate retaliation and punishment, it cannot permit the use of force at odds with its own standards of enforcement. Any such unauthorized use of force must be judged as tantamount to the initiation of force and prohibited by law.

Anarchism is thus logically incoherent, because it involves the contradictory notion that the enforcement of different standards of justice must be permitted to operate within the same legal jurisdiction. But either one has the right to enforce his own view of justice, in which case, he cannot permit others to enforce a different view, or others have a right to enforce a different view, in which case, he has no right to prevent them from doing so and thus no right to enforce his own.

The only way to avoid this contradiction is for an enforcement agency to deny other agencies with a different view of justice the right to operate within its own jurisdiction, in which case, it assumes a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. To paraphrase Marx, anarchism contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.

- Bill

Post 17

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:58am

I am differentiating between a monopoly gained through efficiency, and one achieved via legislation.

The real question is, is every monopoly on force coercive? Does every monopoly on force involve the initiation of force? The answer is, no. A monopoly on force can, and should, be restricted to the use of defensive or retaliatory force. If a government forcibly prevents a lynch mob from executing a suspected murderer, is it initiating force against the lynch mob? No, it's simply defending the right of the accused to a fair trial. Its use of force in this case is defensive or retaliatory, not initiatory.

Ok, but I fail to see how that is relevant. If the government forcibly prevents anyone other than the government from stepping in and preventing the lynch mob from executing said suspect, that is an initiation of force, and that is more relevant to our discussion. I would agree that "force can, and should, be restricted to the use of defensive or retaliatory force." But I don't agree that any one person or institution can or should hold a monopoly on defensive or retaliatory force.

Indeed, for the government to allow each and every individual the right to enforce his own view of justice -- his own view of what constitutes retaliatory force -- is to abdicate its own right to do so. Since the government -- or any agency of retaliatory force -- must decide what constitutes appropriate retaliation and punishment, it cannot permit the use of force at odds with its own standards of enforcement. Any such unauthorized use of force must be judged as tantamount to the initiation of force and prohibited by law.

I'm afraid you're knocking down straw men here. Where did I say every individual has the right to enforce his own view of justice? I cannot recall advocating that or anything similar. I agree there is one objectively right set of laws, that certain things are just, and others unjust. I just don�t think any one person or institution can claim the exclusive right to administer justice. Justice is just (by definition), no matter who enforces it. If we know that X is wrong, and Y is the appropriate punishment, then it matters not whether A or B administers justice.

Any such unauthorized use of force�

In other words any initiation of force�

�must be judged as tantamount to the initiation of force and prohibited by law.

I agree, I just don�t agree that anyone has the right to claim a monopoly on prohibiting this force.

Anarchism is thus logically incoherent, because it involves the contradictory notion that the enforcement of different standards of justice must be permitted to operate within the same legal jurisdiction.

Bill, do you wear boxing gloves when knocking down straw men? ;-)!

Ok, so I am no scholar when it comes to anarchist theory, but I am not arguing for �different standards of justice.� Rather, I am arguing for different (competing) institutions enforcing the same (objectively right) standard of justice.

But either one has the right to enforce his own view of justice, in which case, he cannot permit others to enforce a different view, or others have a right to enforce a different view, in which case, he has no right to prevent them from doing so and thus no right to enforce his own.

See my explanations above.

The only way to avoid this contradiction is for an enforcement agency to deny other agencies with a different view of justice the right to operate within its own jurisdiction, in which case, it assumes a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force.

Agency X is initiating force.

Agency Y forcibly restrains Agency X and prevents this.

You claim this "assumes a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force."

That is simply not true, unless Agency Y prevented Agencies A and B from restraining X.

Let's say I need a plumber. If I choose Plumber X, does this mean that Plumber X has "assumed a monopoly on providing plumbing services?"

Post 18

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:49am

Responding to Post 10 from Mr Eichert:

My rule # 4 (see post #2) is made logically necessary by rule # 3. If we are to have equality, we cannot then say that some have a right to enforce correct law and others don't. If we have 1 police officer and we decide we need 2, it would not make sense to object that there would now be a conflict of interest or conflicting laws or a procedural breakdown. Procedures are now, and should always be, a part of the uniform law. We currently have millions of police. Why not millions more? Why not equality?

Mr Eichert writes:

I readily agree that all sorts of things are laws that should not be, but that is not the way the original constitution was meant to be, so why would this be any different after a few centuries?

My belief is that the corruption over time is mainly the result of the establishment of a priviledged ruling class and that such an establishment was the chief purpose and wayward effect of the entire constitution. Political representation is a conceptual fraud. The "founders" may be fairly characterized as a gang conducting a coup to put themselves in power (very much in spite of their libertarian rhetoric). The constitution is mainly devoted to dividing up power within that ruling class, not eliminating it. I think Lord Acton was wrong. Power does not corrupt. It is corruption. No one should have it. Political power means political inequality. And it is this inequality that leads to the bad law. There is a gang in power making law to enhance and enrich their own positions of power. True equality (especially my rules #3 & #5) preclude this.

Post 19

Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:53am