The Reluctant Anarchist

[annarborgator]

Good story about one man's personal ideological journey from statist to anarchist.

The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of force. But force is subhuman; in words I quote incessantly, Simone Weil defined it as "that which turns a person into a thing – either corpse or slave." It may sometimes be a necessary evil, in self-defense or defense of the innocent, but nobody can have by right what the state claims: an exclusive privilege of using it.

It's entirely possible that states – organized force – will always rule this world, and that we will have at best a choice among evils. And some states are worse than others in important ways: anyone in his right mind would prefer living in the United States to life under a Stalin. But to say a thing is inevitable, or less onerous than something else, is not to say it is good.

For most people, "anarchy" is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism – things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term "state," despite its bloody history, doesn't disturb them. Yet it's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what "legitimacy" means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

"But what would you replace the state with?" The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be "replaced."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sobran-j1.html

[DocZaius]

I didn't read the whole thing, but there IS a legitimate role for the state, at least in theory.

The fundamental purpose of the state is to protect its citizens' rights - both from outside AND internal threats. I daresay that, if 200 million have died at the hands of the state in the 20th century, even more would die under anarchy. Look at Somalia, for example - its civil war plunged the state into what is essentially a state of anarchy. Those with power (warlords) take what they want from those who cannot resist them. A state with at least a modicum of police power can stop such abuses.

[annarborgator]

I cannot argue that there will always be those with the will and the means to inflict violence upon innocents. The problem, IMO, is that violent coercion is inherently built into the fabric of the state.

If you can come up with a way to make the state voluntary rather than unilateral, I could possibly see it being worth keeping some form of government. And by voluntary I mean that in order for the state to have general authority over you on an ongoing basis you must give explicit, informed, competent consent to the state's authority over you. In a unilateral, or coercive, state there is nearly no chance to protect yourself from the state's aggression (whether it be violent or merely coercive). The fact that no consent is ever given gives rise to my conclusion above that violent coercion is inherent in the current form of the state.

The warlords may be more violent than the state, but the people would also have a fighting chance to band together and fight back in a meaningful way. That opportunity doesn't exist in any practical way under a statist regime.

[G8rMom7]

I just watched an online video explaining various forms of government (and non-government including anarchy) and what works about them and what doesn't. I was going to post it (and I still might) but Doc pretty much sums up the part about anarchy above.

[G8rMom7]

Here it is...it's about 10 mintues long if you're interested. It helped me in explaining this stuff to Lainie.

[annarborgator]

I guess I just don't get the whole, "We need this institution to protect everyone's rights and we have to attack your rights to give it enough power so it can protect your rights. What's that you say? We can't protect rights that we just destroyed? Shhh you're going to blow our cover, bro. You'll soon enough forget that you ever had those rights to begin with anyway, and your kids and the following generations will certainly never know the difference. Trust us--you'll be 'safer' this way and much more comfortable."

I've grown weary of the tired old Somalia canard that archists love to bandy about. I understand your use of it, Z, because basically every statist does, but blaming Somalia's problems merely on nonarchism (I'm beginning to use nonarchism in place of anarchism because it at least has a more neutral connotation) ignores decades of coercive meddling by foreign states as well as the fact that most of the arms used by the warlords were supplied by Somalia's enemies to create turmoil in the region. They are not so much a nonarchist region as they are embroiled in a civil war over control of their established government.

[annarborgator]

Great paper by Rothbard discussing the operation of law in a free market court system: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html