The Truth About Anarchism
“I have more respect for the reasoning of the authoritarian than I do for the advocate of ‘small government’.He has requested my rebuttal, and I am delighted.
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.”
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
No comments:
Post a Comment