The Truth About Anarchism
Luke Westman, writer at The Analytic Economist, takes severe issue
with my anarchist views and has written an article about me entitled “
Anarcho-Capitalistic Dogmatism”. He based his writing upon this post I recently made on Facebook:
“I have more respect for the reasoning of the authoritarian than I do for the advocate of ‘small government’.
The former believes that because the state is good, we should therefore have as much of it as possible. Makes sense, doesn’t it?
But the latter almost always admits that the state is bad, and then
unbelievably declares that we most definitely should have it on some
level. I am stumped.”
He has requested my rebuttal, and I am delighted.
Upon my first read-through of the article, I was immediately struck
that Luke and I do not agree upon terms. One can see how this would be
problematic in a debate-like undertaking. Because there can be no
meaningful discussion without an agreement upon terms, I will begin by
offering up mine:
“Government” (interchangeable with “state” in this context): A group of people who claim
de facto ownership of the people and landmass within given geographical borders.
“Taxation”: The extraction of wealth by one individual upon another,
by means of ultimate violence if wealth is not offered voluntarily.
And now to the rebutting:
Luke’s main point is this: anarchists “absurdly” believe that there
is either authoritarianism or anarchy, or, as he puts it, the “false
dilemma” between “slavery or freedom”. He says that anarchists maintain
that “there is nothing reasonable between”. It goes without saying that
he prefers something in between.
Dearest reader, I could very well end the article right here,
couldn’t I? Any point between slavery and freedom is at the very least
partial-slavery, isn’t it? If taking 100% of someone’s production is slavery, at what percentage is it
not?
We could end here with our conclusion about this “analytic” economist’s
euphemistic statements and leave it up to him to defend his pro-slavery
stance to anyone who cares to hear it. But that wouldn’t be any fun,
would it?
Luke goes on to propose a very interesting hypothetical in support of
his claim that government can be moral, and it is rather shocking:
“Let us consider a society that has a limited government and within
this society the Constitution is followed to the letter. In order to
provide funding for a police force, 100% of the citizens of this society
vote in favor of a consumption tax placed on gasoline. At this point,
people are free to choose whether they want to consume gasoline or not.
In fact, if the police force gets out of line and starts to abuse their
power, the society can go on a “gas-strike” and defund the police in
order to demand a change in policy.”
Where to begin with the inconsistencies of this imagined society? Let
us assume that he means the government is “limited” due to its
following the letter of its constitution (notice that he strangely
capitalizes the word). He then states that 100% of the citizenry agree
upon a certain policy. This presents a grave problem, for if the policy
is moral based on unanimous consent, it means that the constitution upon
which said policy is based must
also be in use under unanimous consent.
Can you possibly imagine what it would take to get unanimous consent
to any written document meant to be applied to all residents of a given
geographical area? Every single individual would need to be approached
and asked to sign the document with his own chosen lawyer present, and
every time he had a child come of age, the state would need to visit him
again so that his child could sign, and then again once that child had a
child of his own. This would have to take place from the inception of
the document and into perpetuity, for how can
someone else’s legally-binding contract apply to me or you or anyone else?
How could Luke’s imagined police force possibly function when the
state would already have its hands full with attaining unanimous consent
to its constitution? I am actually giggling to myself as I write this.
Not to mention that the very idea that 100% of people could ever agree
upon any vitally important issue is
lightyears more utopian than my free society could ever be!
But let us assume for Luke’s sake that 100% of people in a given area
did agree to all live by the same policies. If that were the case – and this is the clincher – no force,
and hence no government,
would be necessary to assure compliance. It would be a completely
voluntary organization, funded out of voluntary purchases (though
forcing individuals who don’t support the police to go without gasoline
is quite authoritarian, we’ll give Luke a pass on this one). Are you
seeing where I’m going with this?
Luke, if you believe that the only moral form of government is one in
which all participants unanimously agree to policies and fund them by
choice, you have just described a
voluntary association that is sustained by
donations.
Luke,
That. Is. Anarchy. Anything else is partial-slavery
for some or all individuals concerned, and if you really are
pro-slavery, just come out and say it and save all of us the time it
took to read your article.
Your additional claim that anarchy would require the absence of force is absurd. Of course force would exist, and in fact,
should
exist, so long as some people will attempt to aggress upon others (and
not being a utopian, I think that will likely be the case). Force is
moral, justified, and admirable when used in self-defense and defense of
one’s property.
The facts: anarchists believe that the initiation of violence is
abhorrent, and as such should not be institutionalized into a monopoly
force called a “state”, with the laughable dictate that it judge and
correct
itself in
its own court system. Anarchists believe that a “constitution”, as a binding legal document, is not in fact binding upon anyone who doesn’t
sign
it. Anarchists believe that the market, which already provides us with
every product and service of which we can dream, can (and currently does
in many places) provide the comprehensible services of defense and
justice.
In closing, I address your repeated use of the word “statist”, which
is a word I don’t frequently use. You seemed to take great offense at
this word and the fact that anyone would use it, especially if directed
at yourself.
Do I take offense if someone calls me a murderer? A liar? A thief or
cheat or charlatan? No, I don’t, because I know that I am none of these
things.
I have a suspicion as to why you take such offense at the word “statist”:
It’s because you are one.
original location http://amandabillyrock.com/the-truth-about-anarchism
archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20130701065010/http://amandabillyrock.com/the-truth-about-anarchism
