I’m an anarchist because people’s lives are not games.  No one should have the monopolistic legal authority to dictate how people live, where people live, or when their lives end, especially when it’s unnecessary for the security and advancement of both individuals through their own efforts and society through the actions of the many individuals making it up.   But really, as I learn more I tend to find myself having different reasons for being an anarchist.  I mean, it isn’t necessarily that I drop my original views (such as: regardless of whether or not the State is indeed beneficial to society and the individuals under its supposed jurisdiction, it still must first exist by an unethical means—compulsory confiscation of representations of labor or value, regardless of the intentions of the owners of said goods).  But I tend to adopt new understandings and further my reasoning for holding my view.   Most recently I’ve found myself very intrigued by a Nockean theory that with an increase in State power there comes a decrease in social power.  And this is evidenced greatly by the diminution of cooperatives, fraternal societies and confraternities in the western world up through the early 20th century, even today.  When there’s an involuntary involvement of a third party that claims it has an interest in arbitrating the dispute it takes the power away from the individuals who have a direct interest in the arbitration.  Because of that, their power is diminished and they resort to relying on that entity.  That reliance leads to a decrease in interaction between the individuals which correlates with an increase in distrust of one another, since neither perceive each other to be capable of dispute-resolution to the same extent as the entity that claims authority in the arbitration.  With distrust comes less voluntary cooperation, less mutually-beneficial transactions and less social assistance. So the existence of the entity itself is problematic and not beneficial to the moral-development of individuals, to their ability to care for one another and voluntarily assist one another. But then again, the arguments against these assertions are that, regardless of whether or not the State is an immoral institution, it must exist in order to protect people from the inherent evils of human nature.  I’m not going to get into the whole “human nature isn’t evil but rather incentive-driven” argument.  Rather, let’s take that notion at face value: “human nature is evil; the state is necessary to restrict evil actions.”  If that truly is the case and humanity is evil then would it also make sense that the laws created by evil-natured humans are for the benefit of those evil-natured humans?  Or is that an absurd assertion?  Secondly, the State having the monopolistic authority over legislation within a given region would incentivize more evil-natured humans to seek out positions that would be most beneficial to them.  And as it is a “legal” monopoly, it is the only entity capable within the region (in the eyes of the “law of the land”) of doing such things.  So those who are primarily attracted to such positions are those who are among the least ethical people in society, having a greater degree of an evil human nature than the others.  Those are “our” legislators.  Then another argument for its defense is that the “market” cannot provide some goods and services adequately (ie. roads, security, international commerce, money).  For arguments in response to those assertions I recommend reading Anarchy & The Law, The Voluntary City and Denationalisation of Money.  I can go on, but need to finish cleaning. That’s a very deep question.  And my answer can be summarized as this:  I’m an anarchist because I acknowledge a more moral and individually, as well as socially, beneficial form of human interaction.

I’m an anarchist because people’s lives are not games.  No one should have the monopolistic legal authority to dictate how people live, where people live, or when their lives end, especially when it’s unnecessary for the security and advancement of both individuals through their own efforts and society through the actions of the many individuals making it up.  

But really, as I learn more I tend to find myself having different reasons for being an anarchist.  I mean, it isn’t necessarily that I drop my original views (such as: regardless of whether or not the State is indeed beneficial to society and the individuals under its supposed jurisdiction, it still must first exist by an unethical means—compulsory confiscation of representations of labor or value, regardless of the intentions of the owners of said goods).  But I tend to adopt new understandings and further my reasoning for holding my view.  

Most recently I’ve found myself very intrigued by a Nockean theory that with an increase in State power there comes a decrease in social power.  And this is evidenced greatly by the diminution of cooperatives, fraternal societies and confraternities in the western world up through the early 20th century, even today.  When there’s an involuntary involvement of a third party that claims it has an interest in arbitrating the dispute it takes the power away from the individuals who have a direct interest in the arbitration.  Because of that, their power is diminished and they resort to relying on that entity.  That reliance leads to a decrease in interaction between the individuals which correlates with an increase in distrust of one another, since neither perceive each other to be capable of dispute-resolution to the same extent as the entity that claims authority in the arbitration.  With distrust comes less voluntary cooperation, less mutually-beneficial transactions and less social assistance.

So the existence of the entity itself is problematic and not beneficial to the moral-development of individuals, to their ability to care for one another and voluntarily assist one another.

But then again, the arguments against these assertions are that, regardless of whether or not the State is an immoral institution, it must exist in order to protect people from the inherent evils of human nature.  I’m not going to get into the whole “human nature isn’t evil but rather incentive-driven” argument.  Rather, let’s take that notion at face value: “human nature is evil; the state is necessary to restrict evil actions.”  If that truly is the case and humanity is evil then would it also make sense that the laws created by evil-natured humans are for the benefit of those evil-natured humans?  Or is that an absurd assertion?  Secondly, the State having the monopolistic authority over legislation within a given region would incentivize more evil-natured humans to seek out positions that would be most beneficial to them.  And as it is a “legal” monopoly, it is the only entity capable within the region (in the eyes of the “law of the land”) of doing such things.  So those who are primarily attracted to such positions are those who are among the least ethical people in society, having a greater degree of an evil human nature than the others.  Those are “our” legislators. 

Then another argument for its defense is that the “market” cannot provide some goods and services adequately (ie. roads, security, international commerce, money).  For arguments in response to those assertions I recommend reading Anarchy & The Law, The Voluntary City and Denationalisation of Money.  I can go on, but need to finish cleaning.

That’s a very deep question.  And my answer can be summarized as this:  I’m an anarchist because I acknowledge a more moral and individually, as well as socially, beneficial form of human interaction.

Tags: Messages TopherCarlson Anarchy Anarchism Libertarian Politics