One idea that I find intriguing is the notion that peace can be obtained through anarchy, which Webster’s defines as “a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.” One of the original proponents of this concept was Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy believed that all violence was wrong, including personal self-defense against imminent attack. Furthermore, as Peter Kropotkin wrote: “Robbers, [Tolstoy] says, are far less dangerous than a well-organized government.”
These convictions continue to inspire pacifists today. Colman McCarthy, the Director of American University’s Center for Teaching Peace, bemoans the fact that, in the minds of his students, the word “anarchy” invariably means “chaos.” His reply? “Instead of fantasizing about the pending calamites that might happen, think about the calamities that are happening now; war, poverty, and the degradations of violence sanctioned by political power and laws.”
McCarthy worries that youth that “dress in all black and mass-migrate to protests at the World Bank” have given anarchists a bad name by engaging in “verbal violence.” But these are not the people I would worry about if the government was disbanded.
Instead, my mind turns to the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when a heavily armed private militia patrolled the streets of predominantly-white Algiers Point and shot African-Americans at will.
I think about Glenn Beck’s 2014 civil war scenario called “The Bubba Effect,” where angry Americans hole up in armed camps in the South and West and shoot anyone who comes near their land.
I think of Chris Broughton bringing an AR-15 assault rifle to a health care reform rally in Phoenix and declaring, “We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote.”
These are some of the people who we’d be counting on to live peacefully among their fellow human beings in an anarchy? And we’d expect them to embrace an egalitarian—and possibly collectivized—society?
There are more than 250 million privately held firearms in the United States. That’s no recipe for a peaceful society even with the rule of law intact.
During my ten years in the gun control movement, I’ve been struck by how often gun rights activists argue for anarchy. Time and time again, they will say that gun control is a bad idea because “criminals don’t obey laws.” The inference is that laws only punish law-abiding citizens and, therefore, there is no use for them. Simultaneously, the gun lobby advocates for “Shoot First” laws in state legislatures across the country. These laws remove the common law duty to retreat, allow individuals to use lethal force if they subjectively believe they are under fear of great bodily harm, and exempt shooters from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. Finally, the National Rifle Association preaches that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to stockpile firearms against our government and overthrow it violently should it become “tyrannical” (Google “tyranny” and see how many hits you get about the Obama administration).
What would anarchy look like in the United States? Think The Turner Diaries, Neo-Nazi William Luther Pierce’s ultra-violent novel about the overthrow of the federal government by a small far right-wing network. The network’s revolution is predicated on brutality and eventually leads to global nuclear war and the extermination of all Jews and non-Whites. The book’s narrator has the following to say:
Liberalism is an essentially feminine, submissive world view. Perhaps a better adjective then feminine is infantile. It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness, the spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after. Nor should spiritually healthy men of our race even want to be like that, if it could be so.
The Turner Diaries was Timothy McVeigh’s “Bible.” And it can be found at any gun show you walk into in America today.
A democratic form of government inevitably produces some of the state-sanctioned violence that pacifists so abhor. But it also provides citizens with an elaborate set of mechanisms to influence policy and seek redress for injury. There are no such guarantees in a condition of anarchy.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best in a speech in which he called for federal intervention to protect the lives of African Americans from mob violence: “It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” Amen.
The vision of anarcho-pacifists is noble and something we should aspire to—when civilization is finally ready to accommodate it. A famous admirer of Tolstoy’s once put it thusly: “Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well being of his neighbors. In an ideal State there will be no political institution and therefore no political power.”
I use it as a pejorative quite a bit, but for some reason a lot of well meaning leftist folks talk about Anarchy whistfully – like Woody Guthrie or Emma Goldman returned from the grave would solve our ills.
As you so simply illustrate, Anarchy has far more in common with the dark evil heart that is the far right wing. It is the rejection of the state, as they see the state as an affront to the Hobbsian reality these people seek to impose on the world. Hence their constant fear mongering and talk of collapse. Even Glenn Beck is out there hawking Gold these days.
As well meaning as they are, people who talk about Anarchy have almost no experience with the philosophy in action. I know a number of folks who do. Sub saharan Africa and the streets of Mogidishu come immediately to mind. Put your average black box Anarchist in an environment like that and see what happens. While I understand the philosophical roots of Anarchism, the practical reality of its implementation is a return to the lawlessness and brutality not seen since the middle ages. The state, for all its warts, in a democracy is an equalizer. It prevents armed goons from ransacking your neighborhood, taking all your food and killing your loved ones. As a fried of mine who worked in sub saharan Africa for a while told me, watch what happens when you take the state out of a situation. Peace does not break out, unfortunately. There are too many examples.
At its heart, Anarchy is rooted in the rejection of a state – any state. Which is why this sentence hits the nail on the head:
“A democratic form of government inevitably produces some of the state-sanctioned violence that pacifists so abhor. But it also provides citizens with an elaborate set of mechanisms to influence policy and seek redress for injury. There are no such guarantees in a condition of anarchy.”
Those in the movements that use people like Beck as their spokespersons, go to gun shows and pick up copies of the Turner Diaries, are playing a dangerous game. Sure, some of them might believe it. It’s possible. But most are just crass opportunists. Because this ‘right wing anarcho-nihlism’ as I call it is merely a cover to roll back all the progress we have made in this country and the world since the end of the second world war. It is nothing less than a cover for a return to feudalism, to the third world, where a few people amass all of the wealth and power and the rest are left to live in squalor.
So, yes, Dr King was right. I thank goodness that we live in a democratic state that enables this kind of progress. Until the day humanity can achieve the capacity to change, Anarchy will serve as nothing but a vehicle to enable the worst elements of our society to rise up from the depths.
Thought-provoking. I can’t see how a “self-controlled society” could ever be possible, however, outside of small groups. I believe that laws are necessary for the survival of our species. The dilemma is that they should not be administered by tyrants (we do not have tyrants, we have unpopular representatives – we can un-elect them).
Hi there.
If you’re going to assess the value federal governments — as opposed to the lack thereof — you should address the various forms of state violence and oppression. What about state surveillance? What about state military recruitment? What about legal access to guns? Etc. Etc.
When it comes to issues like these, it’s crucial to address questions about how effectively federal governments — and the people taking action in and through them — have ever or could ever do the peacekeeping and such that you are alluding to.
Also –
There are different forms of government — and different levels of government (e.g. the municipal level VS the federal level). There is a “Libertarian Municipalism” model that supports confederated municipal governments, while rejecting federal and state/provincial government. That Municipalism model comes from former anarchists.
I’m not an anarchist, myself, but I find this post much too one-sided.
You do address some of my concerns in passing (while referring to “state-sanctioned violence”, for example), but I figure those state failings are at the centre of these issues, rather than out toward the outer edges.
I mean, it’s obvious enough federal governments aren’t all bad, but how bad are they, and how good could they ever be?
You seem to leave some room for other possibilities.. some day… but, again, those possibilities are crucial, so they deserve more attention.
Thanks for your comments, T.B. I’m all for hearing about those “possibilities,” so if you have any in mind, please share them. You seem to be suggesting the “Libertarian Municipalism” model might be practical, but then again, that doesn’t sound like a pure form of anarchy, as individuals would still be governed at the local level.
As for states keeping the peace, I think we have to differentiate between keeping the peace internally and externally. Most democracies do a pretty good job of keeping the peace internally (although I would agree that weak gun laws in the U.S. present consistent threats to the public’s safety). Their record in keeping the peace externally is obviously far more mixed, although many have observed that democracies rarely go to war with one another.
My point with this piece was not to deny the shortcomings of government (even the best governments are imperfect and subject to poor management and decision-making by those running them and electing them), but to ask if peace could legitimately be obtained in a condition of anarchy. I have seen precious few compelling arguments on that score.
As Gary Wills made clear in his book “A Necessary Evil” government may not be perfect but the alternative is far more dangerous. In fact, I would argue that currently the U.S. has struck a pretty good balance between individual freedom and government action. Yes, we have to pay taxes and obey the law but the freedom to succeed, prosper and speak our minds is pretty phenomenal. In an anarchical society the only way to stop your fist (i.e your interests, economic and otherwise) from hitting my nose, is my brute force. That would get very old, very fast. Thanks for starting this discussion, it is one well worth having.
Hi Mr. Everitt, thanks for emailing me the link to your post. It’s very interesting, and I’m happy to see that you found a dictionary definition that doesn’t define anarchy as “disorder,” since that’s not what it originally meant, and is what many peoples’ views of anarchism is.
As far as the question, “Can peace be obtained through anarchy?” Yes, I think it could. There have been several examples of anarchy in action, though most of them have been small, I shall grant anyone that argument. Though, it shows that the principle can work. Now, how well with several million people, that’s another question. That’s why I argue for privatized services, including privatized security one can use to protect your home if you wish. Other privatized services include water, sewage, and garbage, which have been implemented in many places, no government needed. That’s all anarchy is anyway, the lack of a government, so I propose replacing government with privatized services, which operate on a completely free market, through contracts with individuals for such services.
I do not agree with Tolstoy that self-defense is wrong. Any harm that is done to an individual is wrong, therefore, you are completely in the right to stop such action.
Many people bring up these third-world countries where governments have fallen and argue this is what would happen should anarchy become a reality, but what isn’t mentioned is the already present turmoil to begin with.
I also agree with the commentator named T.B. about the always present violence and abuse by the government. A mass murderer – if not caught – could never kill as many people as a government could in a single war, or even the “War On Drugs.” More like war on people (that’s the extent of my “rant” on that subject). But the fact that as government gets bigger, more intrusive, and continues to violate our rights, I don’t see the point in supporting government. Yes, it’s true we vote, but what does that accomplish, really? It simply exchanges one tyrant for another and solves very little, to nothing at all.
I’d like to make one last comment about what commentator J.H. said:
“In an anarchical society the only way to stop your fist (i.e your interests, economic and otherwise) from hitting my nose, is my brute force.”
This doesn’t make sense to me because, while you may protect yourself (or even contract with a privatized security officer to patrol your home) in an anarchical society, what’s the difference between the cops finding some robber, beating the crap out of him, while throwing him behind bars where he’s likely to be raped, beat, or deathly ill in america’s prisons? You’ve simply allowed another group of individuals to use brute force instead of yourself. Brute force is a simple fact of life. Some people wish to take what’s not theirs and they should be stopped with force if necessary.
The point I like to stress is that without government human beings would be free to live their life as they wanted (so long as they don’t infringe upon anothers’ rights), without their possessions and income being stolen ( erosion of personal property laws and taxes) – not to mention violated by police, if not beaten or killed – or violated in some other way by some “authority” whom you cannot protect yourself from (ever see a person protecting themselves from a cop using excessive force? It’s called “resisting arrest”, not the actual, ‘protecting myself from abuse and excessive use of force which should be the right of every individual’).
Arizona Atheist, thanks so much for reading the blog and leaving your comment here. I must say, I think it would be a very good response to a blog entitled, “Can Freedom from Government be Obtained Through Anarchy?” As a response to this blog, however, I find it less persuasive.
I personally don’t believe that an anarcho-capitalist system, where individuals contract out for privatized security services, is conducive to establishing a peaceful society. Others have described the potential perils better than I can. I would refer to Ayn Rand, who feared that private security firms in an anarcho-capitalist system would quickly resort to violence as soon as a dispute broke out between individuals employing different firms: “[S]uppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.” With no objective legal code in place, it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that such disputes could eventually lead to full-scale conflicts. In an era when we have seen major (and disturbing) scandals involving private firms like Blackwater, CACI, Titan Corp., and Aegis Defence Services, Rand’s warning seems particularly prescient.
As I noted in this blog, while a democratic form of government does come with warts (including war and incidents of excessive force by law enforcement), it also allows citizens numerous avenues to affect policy and redress grievances. In the case of police abuse, citizens have tools at their disposal to deal with such problems. Even if it is impossible to pursue criminal charges against rogue police officers, citizens can still rid themselves of a mayor, council, and other elected officials if they refuse to address the problem satisfactorily (i.e., by firing the officers, launching an internal investigation, appointing a new police chief who is willing to clean up the department, etc.). Ultimately, public officials are dependent on our votes and financial support, and that allows us our full say concerning their public safety decisions.
Those guarantees simply don’t exist in a state of anarchy, and your belief that “brute force is a simple fact of life” (whether you are an adherent of Tolstoy or not) does not seem to me like any type of foundation upon which to achieve peace.
“As I noted in this blog, while a democratic form of government does come with warts (including war and incidents of excessive force by law enforcement),”
You think war is a mere “wart”???
Vietnam – 2 million killed.
Cambodia – 1.5 million IIRC
East Timor – 1.5 million IIRC
Iraq – 1.5 million (that’s actually from the war between the Iraq wars when we bombed essential civilian infrastructure, i.e. water supplies).
I could go on and on and on. Since the end of WWII more than 10 million people have died from American wars (direct and indirect). That’s a wart?
That was a great catalyst for a great discussion! I’d like to read about some of those examples about “anarchy in action” one of the commentors mentioned. Would you be able to refer me to where I could read more?
You pretty much expressed my sentiments exactly, though I do agree that exploring some of the forms of government violence more thoroughly would make quite an interesting follow-up. As for weighing government violence against violence that would arise out of anarchy, as one of the commentors suggested, that’s kind of missing the point, and I’m glad you expressed that. After all, your title asked if PEACE could be attained through anarchy, not simply less violence.
I think we should instead focus on achieving that state in which anarchy COULD be possible, as you quoted Tolstoy expressing. What could we do to achieve such a state? Would we simply have to change the political processes of democracy, or are we taking on a much more daunting challenge of changing human nature altogether? We would not only have to create a more peaceful environment between people, but would have to change society’s ingrained reliance on government itself. As Locke wrote, formation of a government as a natural form of social organization is second only to the family. Changing that philosophy would be quite an undertaking….(tharr be more) Peer into the depths
As you wrote, an anarcho-pacifist world is certainly a goal we should work towards, but only when “when civilization is finally ready to accommodate it.”
Hi Mr. Everitt,
I hope you had a nice new year.
My point about organization is that without it peace is less likely because of mass confusion. But if there is a structure to society, with known boundaries, that is one large aspect of a peaceful society. I also did mention those several anarchist societies that have been peaceful and successful.
You seem to think (and please correct me of I’m wrong) that anarchy is utopian; that there will be absolute peace and people will respect others all the time, but that’s simply not realistic. It doesn’t happen by any means with the government now, and it sure wouldn’t happen without one. However, the liklihood of there being less deaths and violence is good since the government is responsible for so much as it is. Like I said, it’s a fact of life that there are people out there who wouldn’t hesitate to harm you in order to take what they want, which is where the privatized security comes in. My point was that as it stands now, these brutalizers are our ‘authorities’, whom we often cannot get compensation from if they happen to cross the line. How many times have police gotten off the hook for their abuses? I do not trust the fox to watch out for the hen house. They protect their own and often lie. Even with a change in management so to speak, I sure haven’t seen much change in the level of police brutality lately. If anything, from what I’ve seen, it seems to be on the rise.
As far as the disputes between different agencies I don’t see that as a great argument. Contracts could be set up between them for guidance if such occurrences did take place. Anarchy is not lawlessness; it is truly a society for the people, by the people. Individuals agree with one another about the rules they will live by, instead of it being foisted upon them as it is now.
Ultimately, it’s about the equality of each human being. No human being is above another and no human being is ‘above the law’ so to speak. If another person infringes upon the rights of another something can be done about it because no individual is out of reach of any other individual.
I’m no expert on the subject so I may not be able to answer all your questions, but my friend, who changed my views about government, might be willing to discuss the issue of anarchism with you. You can contact him at his website if you’d like another viewpoint: http://www.bobclapp.com/ The link to his blog is at the top also.
Caitlin,
I wrote a piece about various anarchist societies a while back. It can be found here:
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2008/06/abolishment-of-state-part-1.html
Here is a rebuttal that was posted @ the infoshop
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100104190144740
I would add to that the the question this article seems to address is not “Can peace be obtained through anarchy” but “Can peace be obtained through anarcho-pacificism”. Its interesting that you start off with Tolstoy, who didn’t consider himself anarchist, and most certainly didn’t advocate revolutionary activity; I believe that the quote is, “The only revolution there can be is a moral revolution” (also I think it is worth noting that the Tolstoyans were slaughtered like dogs by the Tsar and Bolsheviks…governments are good!?).
My other, more significant complaint would be that Anarchism is less ‘government is bad’ then it is ‘institutionalized coercion is bad’ (which doesn’t make a very good slogan). Its often difficult for people to swallow but anarchism is a type of socialism (even ‘anarcho-capitalist’ are market-socialist, being against usury ). Take policing for instance; too most anarchist (there are to many stains to generalize much) the problem isn’t a community trying to enforce rules, its the institutionalization of coercive authority inherent in a professional police force. Most anarchist would say that instead of giving the policing power to static group of professionals, the responsibility should be shared in the community. During the spanish civil war (one of the supposed examples of anarchism in action) worker militias did the policing, shutting down some 95% of the brothel (in Catalina). The professional police (obviously what passed in the early 1900s is quite different from today) couldn’t shut them down due to a bribe, not being part of the community, etc.
That said, other then the claim that gun-rights activist are anarchist ( or ‘argue for anarchy’ ), its at least an honest attempt that skips most of the sillier distortions about what anarchism is all about.
Anarchists believe that people can ban together voluntarily to meet their common needs, without the need of a coercive central authority. This goes for fighting bands of neo-nazis and keeping one another safe as well as everything else. One idea posits that people would form “mutual defense associations” to respond to emergencies, investigate crimes, and apply sanctions to pressure criminals into some form of accountability process. The major differences between this and government police are 1) mutual defense associations would be voluntary; people could join and opt out of them as they please and 2) no association has any special authority; every individual in an anarchist community has the same right to defend themselves and others, mediate disputes, and so on.
If a mutual defense association became coercive and oppressive, it would be met with the same sanctions as coercive individuals. The most basic sanction is disassociation. Any worker or member of a defense association which chose to fight another defense association rather than accept third party arbitration could be entirely blacklisted from a community. For serious violent crimes, some form of citizen’s arrest and physical restraint might be necessary.
Also, it’s easy to create scare scenarios for any proposed system. If Turner Diary types are were such a big problem that voluntary associations in an anarchy can’t handle them, then whose to say they couldn’t they just use elections or a coup to take over the government now?
Thanks X., but if your non-coercive mutual defense associations spent their days fighting well-armed Turner types, you certainly wouldn’t be living in a peaceful society. That is what this blog was studying, whether peace could be achieved through such a system, not pockets of non-coercive communal living (although on that score even you describe some penal measures for crime that are coercive).
First off, I see a difference between coercing another and defending oneself from coercion. I’m against coercion because it subordinated one person to another and violates someone’s autonomy, whereas proportionate self-defense asserts the equality of the defender. Self-defense might be coercive in one sense, but not in a way that is problematic for anarchist principles.
Second, I’m assuming Turner types exist in either scenario, so that either the state is fighting them or voluntary associations are. Though I expressed a preference for non-violent sanctions, I’ll grant that neither scenario is entirely peaceful. I’d still argue that networks of mutual defense associations are likely to be more peaceful then centralized states, because 1) states are run by political elites, who can use the concentrated force of the police, military, and prison system to impose whatever is in their interests on everyone else and 2) individuals in an anarchist community can hold mutual defense associations accountable by opting out of war-mongering defense associations to join or create more peaceful ones. An out-of-control defense association in decentralized network of other defense associations is easier to deal with through activism and community organizing than an out-of control centralized state.
I’m a week or two late on this but came across it on MLK Day and felt like there were a few things that needed to be said.
First, the law ultimately did not keep King from being lynched, and in fact may have even been responsible for it. Second, describing the operations of the war machine and all of its genocidal implications as “warts” is simply preposterous. Third, there seems to be some confusion about right-wing versus left-wing versions of anarchism — and this brings me to a final reflection on this essay that at least possesses the virtue of getting us to think.
Anarchism isn’t just about the notion that (a la Marx) a communalist utopia will emerge when the state magically “withers away.” It isn’t even specificially about the state at all (despite its etymology) — rather, it’s about rejecting the hegemonic forces that undergird the state and its corporate benefactors, namely domination, hierarchy, coercion, enslavement, etc. You can have a community that is essentially “law abiding” without the state and all of these ideological trappings, but once you rely upon liberalist laws to enforce community, you’ve replaced cooperation with compliance and organization with obedience. Look around — the model isn’t working.
Anarchism, in short, is a philosophy of peace and nonviolence (Tolstoy was right that the state/law itself is violence), and given the present 80/20 configuration of the downwardly-spiraling world we live in, perhaps we should take the anarcho-pacifist’s imaginative lyrical advice and just give [anarchy] a chance….
Peace Through Anarchy?
I’d be inclined to say that anarchy is peace, rather than that peace can be attained through anarchy.
Webster’s Dictionary
I reject the definition given. An anarchy would not be a utopia, and I suspect most anarchists recognise this. It wouldn’t be a utopia because there would still likely be disease, animosity, random acts of crime, and even wealth disparity–although I believe sincerely that all of these problems would be diminished in a stateless society far more than in any potential statist society.
By “crime,” I mean any act of aggression, where aggression is defined as the initiation of force or fraud. Since these acts establish a coervice hierarchy, with the aggressor as king and the aggressed as the king’s subject, it’s only natural that all true anarchists are opposed to this sort of interaction. (Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, where the coercive hierarchy is established, anarchy ceases to be; anarchy is only re-established when the coercive hierarchy has been de-established.)
Different anarchists have different ideas of how to resolve such problems. Anarcho-pacifists, for example, rely entirely upon boycotts and ostracism in order to discourage crime, while non-pacifist anarchists rely on purely defensive force. Non-pacifist anarchists justify the use of purely defensive force on the grounds that (A) aggression is the initiation of force or fraud, and thus defensive force is not aggressive; and (B) in requiring the criminal to pay restitution to her victim, the non-pacifist anarchist is de-establishing the violent relationship that was previously established by the criminal. Whether the non-pacifist anarchists or the anarcho-pacifists present better arguments and ideas, of course, is up to you to decide.
As for wealth disparity, I say that would be diminished in a stateless society but not eliminated precisely because valuations are subjective. Let’s say we each have an apple, and we both think the other person has the better of the two apples. Naturally, we’ll trade, and thereby increase our mutual wealth. But let’s say we both agree that you have the better apple, and therefore you’re not willing to trade it for what we both view to be my inferior apple. Obviously I can’t wack you on the head and simply take your apple, such such an action would be aggressive and thus illegitimate. Assuming all else is equal, we have no alternative but to determine that you are more wealthy than I am. If we were to suddenly change our minds (without exchaning apples), and were both to conclude that my apple were the better one, then it would be the case that I would be the wealthier of the two. It all ultimately depends upon how one subjectively values what she has as compared to what she does not. Thus, it’s quite possible to say that a person with a mansion but without anything in life that he really values is less wealthy than someone who possesses a house of far less market value but whom is very happy with her things, family, and friends. It is because wealth is inherently subjective that there can never be any system that guarantees an objective equality of wealth.
In short, anarchism is notr utopian. By contrast, I would say that statism does tend to be utopian. People think that if they just elect the right politicians, if they just enact the right regulations and enforce the right laws, everything will fall into place and we’ll have peace and prosperity for all. Of course, such an outlook would be fatally flawed.
Guns
I have nothing against the ownership of guns, and if I recall correctly, Ghandi didn’t, either. My concern is with their usage.
Naturally, I must oppose gun control, since gun control is enforced by an inherently violent institution (i.e., the state) through violence (or the threat thereof).
Tyranny
Obama and Bush are both tyrants. I have no qualms with referring to them as such.
Sadly, while many admit that Bush is a warmonger, it seems few are willing to admit that Obama is, too. Obama bombed Pakistan early in his presidency, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, has not stopped the Iraq war, has not yet closed Guantanamo, and even invaded Somalia.
Redress for Injury
There would definitely be arbitration and dispute resolution organisations in an anarchy. One needs not adopt a state for this purpose.
Guarantees
There are no “guarantees” of redress for injury whether in an anarchy or under a state.
Law and Lynching
Mr. Everitt writes, “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best in a speech in which he called for federal intervention to protect the lives of African Americans from mob violence: ‘It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.’ Amen.”
While anarchists are against legislation, it’s important to note that we’re not against the concept of “law.” There are many anarchists who believe in the concept of natural law and natural rights. For example, I would say that everyone has a natural right to not be aggressed against, and that natural law dictates that aggression is illegitimate.
Again, we come here to a distinction between the anarcho-pacifists and the non-pacifist anarchists. While the anarcho-pacifists may view natural law to dictate that every person must turn the other cheek, non-pacifist anarchists believe that it is not unethical or “illegal” for a person to use defensive force, so long as said force is proportional to that which has been initiated by the aggressor, and so long as said force is directly solely at the aggressor(s), and not to the family, friends, or countrymen or the aggressor.
I support nonviolence because I believe it tends to be far more practical. But I’m not technically an anarcho-pacifist because, while I think nonviolent civil disobedience is the most effective tool we anarchists have, I don’t technically view defensive force as inherently illegitimate–just not very practical.
So, should lynching be considered a violation of law? All anarchists, including pacifists, should have little trouble agreeing that it should. Should Dr. King be free to enforce a prohibition on lynching? The anarcho-pacifists say no (but won’t do anything more than ostracise King for he defensive force) while the non-pacifist anarchists say yes, so long as it is enforced with with purely defensive force.
Either way, one needs no state. If anything, the existence of a state is a huge threat, because what happens if the people doing the lynching happen to also run the government-monopoly police system and the government-monopoly courts (as was the case in many Southern states for many decades)?
Ayn Rand
Ms. Rand’s understanding of anarchist theory was extremely limited, if for no other reason, because she seemed uninterested in understanding it.
I would recommend “Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand” by Roy A. Childs, Jr. Apparently, Rand sent this letter back without ever having read it. It explains why Rand ought to have abandoned minarchism.
I might also recommend The Market for Liberty (1970) by Linda and Morris Tannehill, although it is obviously longer, being a book rather than a mere letter.
In any event, voluntary organisations wouldn’t have the incentive to make war with one another. And Stephen Molyneaux, elsewhere, has pointed out that people in an anarchist society, being weary of a new state arising, would opt not to fund defence companies that show tendencies toward violence.
There are more arguments I can provide, if you like.
Blackwater, etc.
I see these state-contracted firms as nothing more than extensions of the state itself. As such, I would have no problem seeing the workers of Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. seize their firms respectively.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
P.S.
One point I wish to add for clarity:
In my section on Dr. King, I defended the concept of defensive force, so long as it is (A) proportional and (B) directed. But let’s say this does not sit will with you. Let’s say you hold that any violence begets violence and thus reject the idea I defended above. Of course, that’s fine; you’re perfectly free to reject it. The point is that, if you do reject that King may use any degree of force at all in order to preserve his own life, then you must rationally also oppose having the state use any modicum of force—indeed, you must oppose the existence of the state entirely.
Contrariwise, if you accept that the state may use any degree of force, it stands to reason that King should then be free to also use force. But, then, if you’re allowing for proportional, directed, defensive force, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that some institution should have a monopoly on the use of force. I reject having the because it institutionalises violence; indeed, the state could not exist without initiating violence, and any state that actually does abandon all of its aggressive tactics would cease to be a “state.”
Hi everyone,
In response to any difficulties in establishing what does or does not constitute “defensive force”, may I heartily recommend the definitions offered by Marshall Rosenberg from his Nonviolent Communication (NVC) work?
The relevant chapter of his NVC book seems to have been posted at the following web page:
http://www.naturalchild.org/marshall_rosenberg/protective_use_of_force.html
I think this part summarises it fairly well (though the rest makes good reading too):
“The intention behind the protective use of force is to prevent injury or injustice. The intention behind the punitive use of force is to cause individuals to suffer for their perceived misdeeds.”
I have considered myself an anarchist for about five years now – and in that time I have certainly been into the idea that the state is an enemy who we must fight and defeat.
But more recently, thanks to parenthood and accidentally finding out about NVC, I have come to realise that everybody (yes, even George W. Bush) is only following the best strategy they are currently aware of that they believe will meet their needs. I can say with conviction that I now sincerely believe that every single human is doing the most wonderful thing that they are able to, in order to get their needs met – it’s just that often, our strategies for getting our needs met come at the expense of others’ needs.
Needs are universal, and are never in dispute. Some examples of needs might be: air, food, water, shelter, sleep, love, community, protection from disease, creativity, self-worth, etc.
The only thing that can be in dispute is strategies for meeting those needs. Some strategies which have been adopted for meeting needs might be: money, power, guns and the threat of violence. Or they might be strengthening your community, learning new skills (eg. to enable you to resolve disputes peacefully), thinking hard about what kind of world you want to live in and then taking every possible step to live that way.
The needs underlying any particular strategy are universal, even if the strategy harms others. Thus, I am confident that with the appropriate strategies, and with clear, honest, non-judgemental communication, it is entirely possible to peacefully resolve absolutely any dispute and get everybody’s needs met. It’s just a matter of getting creative about our strategies.
By approaching others with enemy images in our minds, judging them, calling them “evil” or “oppressors” or “murderers”, or whatever other names we think they “deserve”, we only serve to further separate them from ever understanding what it is that we actually need, and what we would like them to change in order to better meet our needs. Thus we obliterate any possibility of a good connection and an empathic understanding, and do little more than defeat ourselves, at great personal cost to all involved.
It is difficult for me to explain all of this succinctly – at any rate, something I am still learning about and probably always will be – but I am certain that the philosophies of NVC are an essential component towards obtaining peace, and thus peaceful anarchy.
Perhaps both peace and anarchy will necessarily arrive simultaneously? I’m pretty certain that neither can really exist without the other.
I would recommend any anarchist (actually, anybody at all!) to learn NVC and try to practise it in your daily life.
I have recently been practising it on the most mundane of things (such as “this is a nice peace of toast” in which I am making a judgement, versus “I am enjoying eating this toast” which is a non-judgemental statement about myself) in order to reframe my thinking about all kinds of things. Sounds crazy, right? But I am hopeful that by practising in this way – on things that essentially are fairly unimportant – I will increase my ability and awareness of it at times when it really does matter.
Learning NVC has been both a frightening and hugely eye-opening experience for me so far, but in my humble opinion, it is one of the most truly radical things I have ever encountered.
Learning to empathise with George W. Bush, and to feel a great sadness at his alienated ways of attempting to meet his needs. I would never have thought this something I could do for one of my former and foremost “hate figures”, and yet, here I am able to do it.
When you can transform hatred into empathy and pity, and anger (which by the way does exist in NVC) into a non-judgemental observation, followed by a specific and clear request which would meet your needs, then anything is possible.
I hope you’ll look into it and give it a try – it has certainly enriched my life (and especially my interpersonal relationships) more than I ever thought possible.
Best wishes,
Dave
Stephen Hawking is recently in the news for saying (if I have this right) that the universe could have originated without the assistance of God. Given his own sad condition, I can’t help wondering if he feels he could similarly manage without the assistance of God himself…
[url=http://www.timberlandbootsmise.com/]ティンバーランド アウトレット[/url]
[url=http://www.jimmychooshoesbest.com/]Jimmy Choo 店舗[/url]
[url=http://www.michaelkorsbagstokyo.com/]マイケルコース 激安[/url]
Peace requires anarchy. The state is theft, violence and coercion.
I started to wonder if Peace was obtainable by Anarchy when i went back to where i carved an anarchy sign at the beach and there was a peace sign written in chalk on my anarchy sign, I took a picture of it and was looking at it later on and thought,, hmmm… peace through anarchy,,, and anarchy through peace…. The idea of it was just amazing, but the reality is,,, all the billions of people on this planet will ever get along all the time and its horrible to think that is true, but everyone gets mad, shit happens,,, but anyone can improve their quality of life if they could take a look through the eyes of everyone that they encounter each day and try to help them, because when you do good, you get good back from those other people looking through your eyes for a second also, that is why I will always live my life as a peaceful anarchist,,, because that’s what I would believe it was about and what it stood for,, I believe if enough people cared about one another then you would see a big change in the world,,, I can only dream though, because the reality is,,, there is no hope for the human race,, too many people don’t get the chance to see the world for what it really is because so many people are stuck in a struggle to live the “American Dream” of getting a 9-5 to pay all the bills and settle down with a family but thats not the key to happiness,, live your own way,,, make your own rules,,, just stay positive and peaceful…. That is the key to happiness….
Learn it
Love it
Live it
Legit
Thanks to my father who shared with me about
this weblog, this website is truly awesome.
Since none of us have ever seen “peace” or “anarchy” or “freedom” due to the ever-present group of psychopathic rulers, it is impossible for many of us (I’ve left the door open for you to opt out of this group if you so choose) to even envision a totally free marketplace that supports what you’re referring to as “anarchy”. So we argue back and forth, some supporting this type of “control”, others supporting another — and a few like me insisting that anarchy is not only possible, but it is occurring all around us as we speak.
I suggest if you are truly concerned about anarchy that you spend fifteen minutes of your valuable time reading John Hasnas’ “The Obviousness of Anarchy”. You will find the link here (it’s a pdf file):
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf
Sam
I find the closing statement the truest words written in the entire article: anarcho-pacifism is ideal, though the world is not ready. However, I find myself wondering, with increasing regularity as I study the patterns of human history; will we ever be ready? This structure of being requires, at the very least, that the majority of the human race be benevolent, compassionate, and empathetic. Yet history only shows our species spiraling further and further down into selfishness, distrust, apathy, and rancor. We fear the ill will of our fellow man, and as a result put in place organizations to protect us from ourselves. These organizations, be they governments or religions, claim to act in our “best interests”, yet in reality only crave absolute obedience. They establish sovereignty, weilding the very fear they were created to protect us from as their sword, shield, and armor. In the end, the masses grow tired of their unjust subjagation at the hands of their so-called protectors; revolutions and deicide ensue, and the entire process begins anew. So it has been since the dawn of humankind. If anarcho-pacifism truly is the ideal outcome for the human race, where individual superiority is nonexistant, where every man and woman leads their own lives and words such as “mandatory” and “compulsory” no longer hold meaning, why don’t we cast aside ruling bodies and “go for it”, even though we aren’t ready? Perhaps I am naive or childish for mainting this ideology, but I believe it preferable to die in the attempt to live free, my own man, than to carry on with this perpetual cycle of subjagation and revolution.
I am a sovereign state. Since the world revolves around MY belly-button — not yours — (my world), I can say with certainty that civilization IS ready. (The advantage I have with my “belly-button” thesis is that I know your world revolves around your belly-button, whether you admit it or not). “Civilization” is a mindless abstraction, but I am ready for anarchy and have been a practicing anarchist for some years (I’m nearly 80).
Notice I do not associate myself with any sovereign “movement(s)”. I am personally and totally responsible for my behaviors and actions. I try to provide an example to influence family, friends and neighbors, but I am not responsible for their actions and/or attitudes.
I am responsible for my nonviolence. I can’t dictate your nonviolence, but I hope you are (nonviolent). You wouldn’t be on this site if you weren’t.
Sam