Statism vs. Anarchism

I once believed wholeheartedly in American Democracy and, effectively, in statism, albeit with the contingency that the state would do as little as possible and individual freedoms should be maximized. I was presented an argument, backed with logical reasoning and historical evidence, and have changed my mind. I am convinced that the state is not only a moral evil, but is an institution which stands directly opposite to the cause of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. To introduce you to the debate, I'd like to share with you a summary of how pretty much every conversation between an anarchist and a statist goes. If you'd like to talk about it further, we can expand from here :-). Let's begin with the fundamental difference that sets a state apart from all other human organizations - the legal right to initiate violence.

Anarchist: Do you believe that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong except in cases of self-defense.

Anarchist: Agreed, except in self-defense. So, how should problems be solved if not through violence?

Statist: People should become more involved in government, and then use the power of the government to solve problems.

Anarchist: If this is so, how do you reconcile your objection to violence with the support of government programs, as government programs are paid for with taxes, which are coercion?

Statist: Taxation is not coercive.

Anarchist: Taxation is coercive, because if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and held in prison where, if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: That is why we practice Democracy. We choose our own government.

Anarchist: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which mafia gang he pays protection money to, is he making a free choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands but is forced to marry one of them, can it be said she is free to choose marriage? The only way people can truly be free to choose between governments is if they are free to not choose government at all.

Statist: There is a social contract which binds people born within a region to a government.

Anarchist: There is in fact no such thing. Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on the part of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a contract, it follows that a man can rape a woman and call it love-making.

Statist: But I accept the social contract and so do you, so long as you drive on the roads.

Anarchist: Your choice to accept a contract does not give you the right to impose it on others. You can sign a lease for a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honor the contract, and I have never agreed to a social contract of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from a master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: No, but as Socrates argued, by continuing to live in a country, you implicitly accept the social contract.

Anarchist: Would it be just for me to create a social contract that allowed me to rob anyone in my neighborhood, and by continuing to live in “my” neighborhood, they were expressing consent to obey my social contract?

Statist: No, but we are talking about governments, not individuals.

Anarchist: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is the government not the title given to a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others, a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? In other words, if you remove all of the individuals who make up a government, do you still have a government?

Statist: No, but this is beside the point. You say taxation is violent, but I have paid taxes my entire life and I have never been threatened with violence.

Anarchist: Sure, and a slave may not be beaten if he obeys his master. The definition of slavery is not being beaten but the right of the master to beat. If the slave stays because he fears violence, and conforms to his master’s wishes due to the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral, even if no direct violence occurs. Many women are raped with knives to their throats. Because the throat is not cut does not mean it is not rape.

Statist: Fine, but I still do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxes from its citizens.

Anarchist: Alright, is there anything the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq?

Statist: No, I think the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Anarchist: Do you realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes?

Statist: To some degree, that is true.

Anarchist: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but only possible because you pay your taxes, and your taxes are not extracted from you through force, then you are voluntary funding and enabling that which you call evil. Why?

Statist: I am doing so because I am a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, I can run for office and try to stop it.

Anarchist: That doesn’t follow at all. If you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to child abuse?

Statist: Of course not, and this argument is ridiculous.

Anarchist: If you did claim to be against child abuse and you funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would infiltrate this group and attempt to become its leader, and then somehow stop it from abusing children from the inside, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: No.

Anarchist: Would you agree that if you claimed to be against the war in Iraq, but voluntarily donated your own salary to fund it, that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? That you would claim to be against something, but then commit an enormous amount of time and resources in support of it?

Statist: That would not follow, no.

Anarchist: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you voluntarily fund it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, then continuing to fund it voluntarily is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. However, if you are being FORCED to fund the war in Iraq, then you can say it is a moral evil because it is an initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is an initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite by voluntarily funding something you deem evil. Does this make sense?

Statist: I can see your position, but I do not believe you are correct.

Anarchist: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but my position remains the same. The state may do some evil, but it is a necessary evil for the greater good.

Aaaaaand, this is why I wrote the note, to avoid having this conversation over and over again. You cannot achieve good by doing evil. Evil and violence bring about more evil and violence. The next great step in the progress of humanity is not the expansion of government services to aid more people, it is the abolishment of legal violence and coercion. Until that is achieved, humanity will continue its pattern of violent tyrannies rising and falling until the end of its existence. Don't turn to past failures to look for solutions. Look to the future. Be a real progressive.

Have a nice day :-)