WHY WOULD ANYONE ADVOCATE ANARCHY?
Analysis © 2009 by G. Edward Griffin
Published 2009 September 28.
On 2009 September 2, Adam wrote:
Hi Ed,
I'm sure you are extremely busy, so I'll keep this brief. I just wanted to say thank you again for all that you do and that the following questions and disagreements are raised with a great deal of respect for you.
While learning about different theories on the proper role of government, I discovered the very interesting philosophy of anarchy. Like most people, the word anarchy at first brought to mind images of burning buildings and Molotov cocktails, but in fact, these things could not be further from the anarchist philosophy. When the word "anarchy" is dissected, we see two Greek words: "an", meaning without, and "archy", from "archia" or "ruler". Anarchy, in its truest sense, is simply the absence of government. Many people use the word anarchy to describe chaos and thievery when, in truth, those descriptions are more properly attributed to the state. Those images are emotive responses which society has ingrained into our subconscious.
Anarchy is morally opposed to violence and destruction. The absence of government means the absence of coercion and violence since, without those two elements, government would cease to exist. Stefan Molyneux analyzes many of the assumptions we hold about freedom and society in his free book, Everyday Anarchy (http://freedomainradio.com/free/#EA).
|
MY REPLY:
It is true that violence and civil chaos are not the philosophy or intended character of anarchy but they are the inevitable consequence. The only way to prevent the predator elements of society from plundering, enslaving, or killing their victims is for the non-predators to engage in self defense. Individual self defense is an obvious imperative, and organized self defense is necessary in the face of organized predators. When individuals delegate their right of self defense to specialists whom they hire, they create a coercive force that is inherently dangerous because, as history has shown, those who hold that delegated authority are inclined to exercise mission creep and, in the absence of strict control by their employers, eventually they become no different than the predators who they were employed to keep at bay.
Even if that were not the case, those who are hired to implement organized defense still hold the power of coercion, which makes them dangerous no matter how they are organized. Anachists often claim that, so long as they are structured as a private enterprise instead of an agency of government, it will be acceptable. However, it really makes no difference how coercion is structured. The important issue is not if it is called government or a private security company, it is the nature of its authority and activities. If it is allowed to become "positive" in its use of coercion instead of strictly defensive (the protection of life, liberty, and property) it will attract the predators of society and eventually become oppressive. The history of the Mafia is a perfect example. Initially, it began as the hired private guards of large Italian farms and estates. After only a few generations, the security guards had taken over those estates as their own. (See the book: Men of Honor.) In other words, it makes no difference if organized coercion is done by the state or a private group, unless it is strictly limited to a defensive function, the result will be the same.
ADAM CONTINUES:
With those concepts in mind, I was rather disappointed to see the way you referred to anarchy on page 22 of The Future Is Calling, Part 1. You associate anarchy with barbarism, stating that adherents to barbarism include "any advocate of rule by brute force with no pretense at ideological justification; includes anarchists".
|
MY REPLY:
You have a good point here. I think I should edit that to make it clear that anarchists do not advocate barbarism. The problem still remains that there must be some form of organized coercion in defense of life, liberty, and property. Like you, I would prefer that it be done by private institutions, but the state could do the same thing, provided it is limited by charter to a defensive function and further provided that the citizenry remains forever alert to the danger of the erosion of such a restraint.
ADAM CONTINUES:
It seems that you are either unaware of the philosophy of anarchy or are associating barbarism with your emotional response to the word anarchy instead of the true definition of anarchy.
|
MY REPLY:
Please be assured that I am very much aware of the philosophy of anarchy, and my reaction has nothing to do with emotion. This is entirely an issue of logic – tempered by an observation of history.
ADAM CONTINUES:
Anarchist philosophy opposes barbarism and relies on voluntary means to achieve all ends. Statism is truly barbarism because it relies on violence and coercion to achieve compliance. Even the concept of a protectorate that you have put forth, if it is non-voluntary, must rely on theft (taxation) and violence (the force that backs taxation) to "protect". I do not see how the protectorate you describe is any different from the violence-backed/tax-funded collective defense system we have today. Unless an individual has the choice to secede from the protectorate, it is nothing more than another head of the creature of collectivism. A protectorate comes close but falls short of achieving true liberty because it ultimately relies on violence to achieve its objectives. The protection of society can be achieved without resorting to the barbaric tactics that the state employs.
|
MY REPLY:
The issue of voluntary seccession is at the heart of any free society. I am a strong advocate of upholding that right. If organized defensive coercion is carried out by a private institution, the right of acceptance or rejection of the protection is straightforward. Much like hiring a security service for our home, we can purchase it or not, as we wish. That would be ideal, although it would be difficult to administer at the level of active crime intervention.
For example, if we were to enroll in a local security service and if we were accosted on the street by a mugger, we would expect to have the nearest security officer come to our aid as close to immediately as possible. The security officer, on the other hand, would either have to ask to see our enrollment card before springing into action or he would have to take action regardless of our enrollment. If I were running such a service, I would instruct our officers to do their best to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people regardless of whether or not they were subscribers. I think the practical effect and the public relations impact of such a policy would insure the success of our service and bring nearly everyone voluntarily into the ranks of subscribers. The same would apply to fire protection. If I were running a private fire department, I would instruct my firefighters to respond to all fires and do their best, even if we knew the homeowner whose house was burning was not a subscriber to our service.
Back to the question of freedom to participate or to decline. In my view, this right should be preserved whether services are provided by private institutions or by the state. Most people assume that, if the state is involved, everyone would be forced to participate through taxation, but that is not necessarily true. If the law is written properly, the option of participation can be made entirely voluntary, exactly the same as if provided by a private company. Our minds are easily clouded by the old way of thinking. In the past, the state always has required compulsory participation, but there is no force of the universe that requires it to be so in the future. The state has become oppressive in the past because it never has been effectively limited to a purely defensive function. The American Republic came pretty close to it and, in fact, performed well for the first 80 to 100 years. Unfortunately, there were serious loopholes in the Constitution and cracks in the structure that allowed the predators to seize control. But it need not always be that way. I am firmly convinced that, with the essence of The Creed of Freedom hard wired into the next attempt at building a free state, it can be done.
In any event, if it cannot be done with the state, it cannot be done with private institutions, either. Whenever any group is given the right to use force, the danger will exist. The problem is similar to gun ownership. When guns are in the home, there is always a danger that accidents could happen. Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. The only thing more dangerous than delegating our right to self defense to a community-wide or nation-wide force is not doing so. Without organized self defense, organized predators will always prevail – and that is the problem with anarchy. The solution to managing that danger is, not to refrain from organized self defense, but in organizing it properly (making sure it is used only for the protection of life, liberty, and property) and - most importantly - in creating a perpetual watch-dog movement (Freedom Force may serve that function) to keep the original intent from being subverted over time.
ADAM CONTINUES:
I very much agree with the motto of Freedom Force, "Those without power cannot defend freedom" but would add that "those who believe theft and violence are justified for the purpose of organizing society cannot even conceptualize freedom."
|
MY REPLY:
I agree that we must reject the concept that theft and violence are justified to organize society. There is no such sentiment within The Creed of Freedom or in Freedom Force.
Back
