Practical Anarchy Part 1 - Introduction

If you’ve been reading any of what I’ve written, or talked to me recently about politics, you understand what a tremendous evil I think the state is, and probably understand my reasons why. Many of you have even come to agree with me, or at least understood where I was coming from, which is very encouraging. Violence is a moral evil, and a state is, by definition, an institution of violence which cannot exist without violence. Now the question has been raised, and absolutely rightly so, as to whether violence would be greater without the presence of a state, or, in other words, is statism a necessary evil? In addition, if there is no state, many have asked how the poor would be cared for without welfare, how the enormous costs of health care may be managed for the sick, how those who cannot compete in a free market capitalist society can possibly survive, and so on. Well my friends, today I would like to begin describing to you a framework for a possible society free of a central, coercive state, and as unbelievable as it sounds, how it can solve these problems better than we solve them today. I hope you find it as exciting as I have, and please, feel free to comment as you will!

The following is based on Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux, http://www.freedomainradio.com

INTRODUCTION

When discussing a design for a new society, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First of all, I am not going to discuss every little gap, nook, and cranny of every argument possible. There is an endless list of “what if” arguments that can be made when proposing any new theory. When Einstein proposed a constant speed of light, he was not asked to predict when every broadcast of I Love Lucy would reach Jupiter. When Adam Smith proposed his theory of the free market, he was not required to predict the price of IBM stock in 1984. In other words, what I am presenting is a lesson on how to become a mathematician; I am not going to solve every single math problem. This is a framework for a stateless society. When a stateless society emerges, people will simply have to apply the philosophy to solve problems. Having spent my entire life in a society with a government, I can’t possibly predict every way it will be different, any more than the American founding fathers could have predicted how debates regarding the first amendment could apply to the Internet. We can, however, propose some ideas and see how they would work out with problems we have today.

Secondly, when discussing anything in philosophy, it is important to ask the question “compared to what?” People have a tendency to compare new ideas to Utopias and impossible scenarios. “Your proposal for a society does not eliminate violence.” That is true, because that is impossible. Rather than comparing any idea for a new society, whether it is Marxism, Fascism, Democracy, Theocracy, Anarchy, Oligarchy, etc., to a Utopia, it is better to compare it to societies that exist today and have existed in the past. I do not believe an anarchist society will be a Utopia. There will be violence, there will be evil, and there will be people who struggle. I am, however, confident, that all three of these will be TREMENDOUSLY reduced compared to even American Democracy, which I believe is the best idea for a society until now.

Lastly, I feel I’ve fairly well demonstrated in previous notes the evil nature of government. If you are going to subject the theory of anarchy to a level of testing, you must also subject our current system to that level of testing. If you simply dismiss anarchy by saying “Anarchy cannot supply roads,” you are closed to the possibilities of how it might supply roads, and you assume that government-created roads are the best possible roads. It is imperative you remain open-minded to all possibilities and only eliminate them when they are proven logically inconsistent or ineffective through empirical evidence.

THE ARGUMENT FROM APOCALYPSE

The argument from apocalypse is not exactly an argument, but rather blatant fear mongering. It goes something along these lines.

“WE’RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!”

That’s really just about all there is to it.

The argument is that if proposition “X” is accepted, society will collapse, children will die in the streets, gruesome violence will erupt in every town, the poor will starve, the elderly will grow sick, cats and dogs will sleep together, and so on. The world will descend into an apocalyptic war of all against all, and it’s game over for humanity.

Well… this has been used to argue against just about everything. It was used against Darwin when he proposed evolution. It was used against Bacon when he proposed the scientific method. It was used against Socrates when he proposed using reason over superstition. This is and always has been utter nonsense. The claim is that Proposition “X” is immoral, and therefore only a fool would advocate it. Since people rarely want to appear foolish, they immediately back down.

“Anarchism is evil!” is the cry, and we respond “No it isn’t!” But alas, we have lost the argument before it has even begun! The only thing that is relevant in any intellectual argument is if it is true. Refusing to solve a mathematical equation because you think the resulting number will be evil is just superstition. Propositions cannot be evil any more than they can strangle children or rape nuns. Only people can do good and evil. Propositions can only be true or false.

If someone proposes the AFA, it only demonstrates that they find the proposal emotionally unsettling in some way. If they are ignorant of this, then this is a sign of emotional immaturity. It is the intellectual equivalent of arguing against the proposition “ice cream contains milk” by saying “I had a dream once where a giant ice cream monster ate a bus.” The correct response is “I feel threatened by this idea. Why do I feel threatened by this idea?” and then to go on from there.

THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER

One may ask “Why take such a radical step in eliminating the government altogether? After all, we live in a Democracy; it is very open to our input! We can get involved and change the system, so why abolish it?” This would seem to have some validity. If you are unhappy with the actions of a company, you don’t need to abolish capitalism altogether; you can simply inform the public of the company’s actions and boycott their business. Does not abolishing the government seem like an outrageous risk? After all, such an action has never taken place as a conscious philosophical movement in the history of the world. Governments have collapsed, of course, and one need only look at Somalia to see the in-fighting and potential disasters that can result from that. Coups have taken place as well, but a conscious deconstruction of the governing body? It has never happened.

To further justify fear of anarchy, such proposals for new designs of society come along somewhat frequently, and tend to result in complete disaster. Other “reorganizations” of human society have resulted in slaughter, chaos, war, disorientation of children, rampant polygamy, and so on. It seems a curse of our species that every couple generations some new philosopher will propose the society that will solve all our problems. “Family is tyranny” cometh the cry, and civil war is the answer. “Property is theft!” and the same result. Whether it’s Nazism, Communism, Socialism, the French Revolution, Protestantism, the list is endless of new ideas for society resulting in bloodbaths. Why would anarchy be any different?

Finally, if we do say that “it is good to have no government,” that’s fine, but it might also be good to fly, or sneeze gold. Just because it’s good doesn’t mean it’s possible. What use is a philosophy if it is completely impractical? More importantly, becoming an anarchist is pretty much a sure-fire way to social and familial isolation. Most people will never consider anarchy at all, and probably 1/1000 will become full-fledged anarchists. If something’s impossible, and engaging in debate about it will isolate you from your friends, why are you engaging in it, unless you are some antisocial mess who just wants an excuse to drive people away?

I admit… I love my friends very much, and this is something that weighs on me very heavily. But… what if it is possible? What if you can banish legalized violence from a society, and purge war and mass murder from existence? If it is possible, wouldn’t it be worth risking your friendships, your life, indeed, everything for, especially if you had good reason to believe it could be done?

A FEW PRINCIPLES

As mentioned before, I am not proposing a Utopia. There is no social system that will eliminate evil. In a stateless society, there will be theft, murder, rape, abuse, and lying. As I said before, you must compare a stateless society not to an imaginary world, but to reality.

I do not believe humans are innately good or innately evil. My views on this are fairly standard. Human beings respond to incentives, which is the basis of economic theory. Humans are not innately corrupt, but they will be corrupted by power. Most people will respond to situations in a way most advantageous to them. When humans are forced to choose between virtue and necessity, they will usually choose necessity, and then rework their definition of virtue to fit their actions.

That being said, as discussed in the notes on objective morality, humans have a deep desire to do good. They will rarely choose to do that which they believe is evil unless they can be convinced in some way that it is good.

This is the power of the ruling class to use propaganda to redefine that which is evil as good. In order for a government to expand, it must first take over the money supply to fund its efforts, and second, gain control of education to indoctrinate children. This is why the debate of anarchy is so volatile – anarchists are attempting to reclaim morality from the propagandists. Thus, anarchists are attempting to rewrite the nature of society, and in the past, this has always been done by gaining control of the government and imposing new morals through violence. Anarchists steadfastly believe that the use of violence is morally wrong and thus refuse to take political action. Anarchists are thus unique compared to every other attempt at changing social morality in history.

USING THE PAST TO JUSTIFY THE FUTURE

There is a commonly used objection to anarchy. “Humans are incapable of intelligently and productively ruling themselves.” This objection rests on a fundamental error that’s best dealt with now.

We all understand that it would be completely false to claim that slaves cannot be freed because they lack initiative and education. Slaves lack education because they have been barred from it by force. Slaves lack initiative because they are punished for taking it. It is like saying a totalitarian economy cannot be privatized because all workers are lazy. Clearly the workers are lazy because 100% of their production is immediately stolen from them by force. Nutritionists might as well say fat people cannot lose weight because they are fat.

It is entirely true that people who come out of state-funded schools are functionally retarded in several ways. They do not understand law, they do not understand politics, they do not understand economics, nor do they understand philosophy, nor have they ever taken a course in logic – or even been offered one. They tend not to understand the scientific method, and they do not know how to debate from first principles.

If people do not have the capacity to govern themselves, it is not because humans are naturally unable to do so, but rather because they are actively prevented from being taught how. You cannot say that humans do not have the capacity to be free because they have never been free – it is a completely circular argument. Rejecting the virtues of the future because of wrongs in the past is a closed-loop circle we cannot escape. When anarchism comes to pass, there will be wrenching and challenging transitions for many people, but so what? The harder it is to make a transition out of a violent system, the more absolutely necessary it is. We do not say heroin is less dangerous because it is so hard to quit; rather this is the central reason why heroin should not be taken in the first place. The harder it is to quit, the more reason you should quit it, and the more you should avoid re-addiction.

YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY NICE PERSON ON THE PLANET

There always seems to be this strange disconnect regarding the helpless and needy in society.

For instance, whenever I bring up the abolition of public schools, the immediate reaction is “That is awful! The poor will not be educated!” Just a side note - whenever you, I, or anyone has an immediate canned reaction like this, there’s a fair bet it is the result of propaganda.

I tend to find this rather narcissistic and insulting, as if they believed I somehow did not care about the education of the poor. They will always say this with a completely straight face, as if they are the only person in the world who cares for the education of the poor.

If we accept the premise that only a very small minority of people care about the education of poor children, then we must be vehemently opposed to Democracy, for the obvious reason that if most people are against educating the poor, they will never vote for it in the government. If you approve of Democracy and believe that Democracy will provide education for the poor, then you believe a majority of people think the poor should be educated and are willing to agitate the government to direct tax money towards it. Thus, if you approve of Democracy, you implicitly admit that most people wish to support education of the poor.

If most people support programs to educate the poor, then state programs are simply a reflection of the public will. People are proven willing to sacrifice and put their own self-interests aside for the sake of others. The Democratic “solution” to educating the poor is the creation of public schools. If this solution is eliminated, then the majority’s desire to educate the poor will simply take on another form.

“Ah” says the Democrat, “but without being forced to pay for public schools, no one will surrender the money to voluntarily fund the education of poor children.”

Well, then this is just an admission that Democracy is a total lie – that public schools do NOT represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority. Thus votes do not matter at all, are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, thus we should get rid of this silly overhead of Democracy and go back to good ol’ Platonic minority dictatorship.

This proposal is, of course, greeted with horror, because Democracy is OBVIOUSLY the best system, since public policy does, in fact, reflect the will of the majority.

If the majority of people wish to educate the poor, they will do so whether a state exists or not. If a majority of people do NOT want to educate the poor, then you must not have a state, lest the minority who do wish to educate the poor be prevented from doing so by oppressive taxation. In either case, the poor are better served in the absence of a government.

The same situation can be applied to many other programs.

-Old age pensions
-Unemployment insurance
-Healthcare for the impoverished
-Welfare, etc.

If these programs represent the will of the majority, then removing the government will not remove this kind of charity. If these programs do not represent the will of the majority, then Democracy is a lie, and we should stop trying to interfere with our benevolent leaders through “voting.”

We will go into this more, but it was important to point out the absurdity of the statement that removing a Democracy also removes the virtue that drives its programs. It is a general argument of anarchism that Democratic governors use the natural predilection of people to do good in order to manipulate them. In order to justify the expansion of state power, the state exacerbates poverty, sickness, and ignorance. Thus, the only way to ELIMINATE these plagues on society is to eliminate those who benefit from their existence – those in the state. It is far from the first time in history that a peoples’ natural desire for goodness has been used against them for the benefit of evil.

EVERYDAY ANARCHY

Although you may find the ideas of Anarchy alarming, it is far from an untried and untested system. Anarchy is the foundation on which we organize our personal lives. Human beings do not often resort to violence in order to achieve their desires; they engage in mutually beneficial relationships and agreements. This is entirely natural. The only groups of people who engage in violence to achieve their whims are governments and criminals, and the latter are usually either desperate or find crime more profitable than normal business, another symptom of the state we will get into later.

Prior efforts to rewrite social morality, such as Fascism etc., failed because they were not based on aspects of our everyday lives. We fully accept that the ideas of physics cannot contradict that which we experience every day, and the same can be true of morality. As such, it is easy to understand how the state’s incursion into our everyday “anarchy” is violent and artificial, and how designing a society that isn’t based on violence is entirely natural.

If we look at the example of Communism, we see how it is a complete reversal of what we see in our everyday lives. We retain and trade property every day in our own lives, in the form of words, goods, and services. Stripping people of the right to own and trade property is a violent and unnatural action, thus is it any surprise that every implementation of Communism in human history has resulted in mass murder and tyranny? Any society structured on violent intervention against the natural will be marked by exactly that - violence.

Anarchy does not work in this way.

When you go into work for the day, I find it unlikely you have this conversation with your team.

“I’ve come to the perfect solution to our problem! What we’re going to do is pick two of us and give them guns, and then those two are going to force the rest of us to do whatever they think is best for the next few years. Then at the end of those years, we’ll choose two other people and give them the guns, and then they can decide what we’ll do.”

I have never gone to Barnes and Noble and seen “Creating a Violent Internal Monopoly to Serve Your Customers” in the business section. Perhaps I should look harder.

In the same way, if you have marriage troubles, you may go to a marriage counselor, but you probably don’t go to the mafia, buy them guns and bombs, and then ask them to force you to perform various actions in your marriage. You probably do not also give the mafia permission to throw you into a dark, cold cell if you disobey what they then order you to do.

The list of examples goes on, but the point is that we don’t solve everyday problems the way the state does – with violence, and neither should we solve societal problems in this way. When viewed in this light, the silliness of the state is utterly obvious.