Anarchy Defined

8/12/2019 Anarchy Defined

1/34

Anarchist Theory FAQbyS Bryan Caplan

I heartily accept the motto, That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see itacted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it inally amounts to this, which I alsobelieve, That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared or it, that

will be the kind o government which they will have.

Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty o Civil Disobedience!

!ome writers have so conounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction betweenthem; whereas they are not only dierent, but have dierent origins " !ociety is in every state ablessing, but #overnment, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerableone.

Tho"as #aine, Co""on Sense

They $the %ar&ists' maintain that only a dictatorship ( their dictatorship, o course ( can create thewill o the people, while our answer to this is) *o dictatorship can have any other aim but that o sel+

perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; reedom can be created only byreedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part o the people and ree organiation o the toilingmasses rom the bottom up.

$i%hail Ba%unin, Statis" and Anarchis"

In e&isting !tates a resh law is looked upon as a remedy or evil. Instead o themselves altering what isbad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. I the road between two villages is impassable, thepeasant says, There should be a law about parish roads. I a park+keeper takes advantage o thewant o spirit in those who ollow him with servile obedience and insults one o them, the insulted mansays, There should be a law to en-oin more politeness upon the park+keepers. I there is stagnationin agriculture or commerce, the husbandman, cattle+breeder, or corn+ speculator argues, It isprotective legislation which we reuire. /own to the old clothesman there is not one who does notdemand a law to protect his own little trade. I the employer lowers wages or increases the hours olabor, the politician in embryo e&plains, 0e must have a law to put all that to rights. In short, a laweverywhere and or everything1 2 law about ashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a lawto put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result rom human indolence and cowardice.

#eter &ropot%in, 'a( and Authority!

$0'hoever desires liberty, should understand these vital acts, vi.)

3. That every man who puts money into the hands o a government 4so called5 puts into its hands asword which will be used against himsel, to e&tort more money rom him, and also to keep him insub-ection to its arbitrary will.

6. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the irst place, will use it or his urtherrobbery and enslavement, i he presumes to resist their demands in the uture.

7. That it is a perect absurdity to suppose that any body o men would ever take a man8s moneywithout his consent, or any such ob-ect as they proess to take it or, vi., that o protecting him; orwhy should they wish to protect him, i he does not wish them to do so9"

:. I a man wants protection, he is competent to make his own bargains or it; and nobody has anyoccasion to rob him, in order to protect him against his will.

. That the only security men can have or their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money


2/34

in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perectly satisactory to themselves, that it will beused as they wish it to be used, or their beneit, and not or their in-ury.


3/34

22. What are some addresses for anarchist World Wide Web sites?23. What are some ma!or anarchist )ritings?

- .hat is anarchis"/ .hat belies do anarchists share/

-narchism is defined by 0he -merican (eritage 8ollege Dictionary as 0he theory or doctrine that all

forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished./-narchism is a negative9 it holds that one thing, namely government, is bad and should be abolished.-side from this defining tenet, it )ould be difficult to list any belief that all anarchists hold. :ust asatheists might support or oppose any vie)point consistent )ith the non*eistence of ;od, anarchistsmight and indeed do hold the entire range of vie)points consistent )ith the non*eistence of the state.

-s might be epected, different groups of anarchists are constantly trying to define anarchists )ithdifferent vie)s out of eistence, !ust as many 8hristians say that their sect is the only true/8hristianity and many socialists say that their socialism is the only true/ socialism. 0his .@. 0he preceding definition has been criticiAed a number of times. 0o vie) myappendi on Defining -narchism, clic& here.B

0- .hy should one consider anarchis" in the irst place/

Cnli&e many observers of history, anarchists see a common thread behind most of man&inds problemsthe state. #n the 2+th*century alone, states have murdered )ell over 1++,+++,+++ human beings,)hether in )ar, concentration camps, or man*made famine. -nd this is merely a continuation of aseemingly endless historical pattern almost from the beginning of recorded history, governments haveeisted. Ence they arose, they allo)ed a ruling class to live off the labor of the mass of ordinarypeople9 and these ruling classes have generally used their ill*gotten gains to build armies and )age )arto etend their sphere of influence. -t the same time, governments have al)ays suppressed unpopularminorities, dissent, and the efforts of geniuses and innovators to raise humanity to ne) intellectual,moral, cultural, and economic heights. @y transferring surplus )ealth from producers to the states

ruling elite, the state has often strangled any incentive for long*run economic gro)th and thus stifledhumanitys ascent from poverty9 and at the same time the state has al)ays used that surplus )ealth tocement its po)er.

#f the state is the proimate cause of so much needless misery and cruelty, )ould it not be desirable toinvestigate the alternatives? 7erhaps the state is a necessary evil )hich )e cannot eliminate. @utperhaps it is rather an unnecessary evil )hich )e accept out of inertia )hen a totally different sort ofsociety )ould be a great improvement.

1- Don2t anarchists avor chaos/

@y definition, anarchists oppose merely government, not order or society. Fiberty is the other, notthe Daughter of Erder/ )rote 7roudhon, and most anarchists )ould be inclined to agree. ormally,

anarchists demand abolition of the state because they thin& that they have something better to offer, notout of a desire for rebellion as such. Er as Gropot&in put it, o destruction of the eisting order ispossible, if at the time of the overthro), or of the struggle leading to the overthro), the idea of )hat isto ta&e the place of )hat is to be destroyed is not al)ays present in the mind. 6ven the theoreticalcriticism of the eisting conditions is impossible, unless the critic has in mind a more or less distinctpicture of )hat he )ould have in place of the eisting state. 8onsciously or unconsciously, the ideal,the conception of something better is forming in the mind of everyone )ho criticiAes socialinstitutions./


4/34

0here is an anti*intellectual strain in anarchism )hich favors chaos and destruction as an end*in*itself.While possibly a ma!ority among people )ho have called themselves anarchists, this is not a prominentstrand of thought among those )ho have actually spent time thin&ing and )riting about anarchisttheory.

3- Don2t anarchists avor the abolition o the a"ily, property, reli4ion, and other socialinstitutions besides the state/

Home anarchists have favored the abolition of one or more of the above, )hile others have not. 0osome, all of these are merely other forms of oppression and domination. 0o others, they are the vitalintermediary institutions )hich protect us from the state. 0o still others, some of the above are goodand others are bad9 or perhaps they are bad currently, but merit reform.

5- .hat "a6or subdivisions "ay be "ade a"on4 anarchists/

-s should become plain to the reader of alt.society.anarchy or alt.anarchism, there are t)o ratherdivergent lines of anarchist thought. 0he first is broadly &no)n as left*anarchism,/ and encompassesanarcho*socialists, anarcho*syndicalists, and anarcho*communists. 0hese anarchists believe that in ananarchist society, people either )ould or should abandon or greatly reduce the role of private propertyrights. 0he economic system )ould be organiAed around cooperatives, )or&er*o)ned firms, andIor

communes. - &ey value in this line of anarchist thought is egalitarianism, the vie) that ineualities,especially of )ealth and po)er, are undesirable, immoral, and socially contingent.

0he second is broadly &no)n as anarcho*capitalism./ 0hese anarchists believe that in an anarchistsociety, people either )ould or should not only retain private property, but epand it to encompass theentire social realm. o anarcho*capitalist has ever denied the right of people to voluntarily pool theirprivate property and form a cooperative, )or&er*o)ned firm, or commune9 but they also believe thatseveral property, including such organiAations as corporations, are not only perfectly legitimate butli&ely to be the predominant form of economic organiAation under anarchism. Cnli&e the left*anarchists, anarcho*capitalists generally place little or no value on euality, believing that ineualitiesalong all dimensions J including income and )ealth J are not only perfectly legitimate so long as

they come about in the right )ay,/ but are the natural conseuence of human freedom.- large segment of left*anarchists is etremely s&eptical about the anarchist credentials of anarcho*capitalists, arguing that the anarchist movement has historically been clearly leftist. #n my o)n vie), itis necessary to re*)rite a great deal of history to maintain this claim. #n 8arl Fandauers 6uropeanHocialism - (istory of #deas and ovements >published in 1'' before any important modernanarcho*capitalist )or&s had been )rittenB, this great socialist historian notes that

0o be sure, there is a difference bet)een individualistic anarchism and collectivistic or communisticanarchism9 @a&unin called himself a communist anarchist. @ut the communist anarchists also do notac&no)ledge any right to society to force the individual. 0hey differ from the anarchistic individualistsin their belief that men, if freed from coercion, )ill enter into voluntary associations of a communistictype, )hile the other )ing believes that the free person )ill prefer a high degree of isolation. 0hecommunist anarchists repudiate the right of private property )hich is maintained through the po)er ofthe state. 0he individualist anarchists are inclined to maintain private property as a necessary conditionof individual independence, )ithout fully ans)ering the uestion of ho) property could be maintained)ithout courts and police.

-ctually, 0uc&er and Hpooner both )rote about the free mar&ets ability to provide legal and protectionservices, so Fandauers remar& )as not accurate even in 1''. @ut the interesting point is that beforethe emergence of modern anarcho*capitalism Fandauer found it necessary to distinguish t)o strands ofanarchism, only one of )hich he considered to be )ithin the broad socialist tradition.


5/34

7- 8s anarchis" the sa"e thin4 as libertarianis"/

0his is actually a complicated uestion, because the term libertarianism/ itself has t)o very differentmeanings. #n 6urope in the 1'th*century, libertarianism )as a popular euphemism for left*anarchism.(o)ever, the term did not really catch on in the Cnited Htates.

-fter World War ##, many -merican*based pro*free*mar&et intellectuals opposed to traditionalconservatism )ere see&ing for a label to describe their position, and eventually pic&ed libertarianism./>8lassical liberalism/ and mar&et liberalism/ are alternative labels for the same essential position.B0he result )as that in t)o different political cultures )hich rarely communicated )ith one another, theterm libertarian/ )as used in t)o very different )ays. -t the current time, the -merican use hasbasically ta&en over completely in academic political theory >probably o)ing to oAic&s influenceB,but the 6uropean use is still popular among many left*anarchist activists in both 6urope and the C.H.

0he semantic confusion )as complicated further )hen some of the early post*)ar -mericanlibertarians determined that the logical implication of their vie) )as, in fact, a variant of anarchism.0hey adopted the term anarcho*capitalism/ to differentiate themselves from more moderatelibertarianism, but )ere still generally happy to identify themselves )ith the broader free*mar&etlibertarian movement.

9- 8s anarchis" the sa"e thin4 as socialis"/

#f )e accept one traditional definition of socialism J advocacy of government o)nership of themeans of production/ J it seems that anarchists are not socialists by definition. @ut if by socialism )emean something more inclusive, such as advocacy of the strong restriction or abolition of privateproperty,/ then the uestion becomes more comple.

Cnder the second proffered definition, some anarchists are socialists, but others are not. Eutside of the-nglo* -merican political culture, there has been a long and close historical relationship bet)een themore orthodo socialists )ho advocate a socialist government, and the anarchist socialists )ho desiresome sort of decentraliAed, voluntary socialism. 0he t)o groups both )ant to severely limit or abolishprivate property and thus both groups fit the second definition of socialism. (o)ever, the anarchists

certainly do not )ant the government to o)n the means of production, for they dont )ant governmentto eist in the first place.

0he anarchists dispute )ith the traditional socialists J a dispute best illustrated by the bitter strugglebet)een Garl ar and i&hail @a&unin for dominance in the 1'th*century 6uropean )or&ersmovement J has often be described as a disagreement over means./ En this interpretation, thesocialist anarchists and the state*socialists agree that a communal and egalitarian society is desirable,but accuse one another of proposing ineffective means of attaining it. (o)ever, this probablyunderstates the conflict, )hich is also over more fundamental values socialist anarchists emphasiAe theneed for autonomy and the evils of authoritarianism, )hile traditional socialists have freuentlybelittled such concerns as bourgeois./

When )e turn to the -nglo*-merican political culture, the story is uite different. Kirulent anti*socialist anarchism is much more common there, and has been from the early 1'th*century. ;reat@ritain )as the home of many intensely anti*socialist uasi*anarchistic thin&ers of the 1'th*centurysuch as -uberon (erbert and the early (erbert Hpencer. 0he Cnited Htates has been an even morefertile ground for individualist anarchism during the 1'th*century, such figures as :osiah Warren,Fysander Hpooner , and @en!amin 0uc&er gained prominence for their vision of an anarchism basedupon freedom of contract and private property. -nd in the 2+th*century, thin&ers residing )ithin theCnited Htates have been the primary developers and eporters of anarcho*capitalist theory.

Htill, this geographic division should not be over*stated. 0he


6/34


7/34

)or&place, but of the )hole system of social production. 0his reuires grassroots bodies, such as)or&ers congresses or conventions, through )hich coordinated policies for the society can bedeveloped in a democratic manner. 0his is proposed as a substitute or replacement for the historicalnation*state./ En this interpretation of anarcho*syndicalism, the revolutionary trade unions are a meansfor achieving an anarchist society, rather than a proposed basis for social organiAation under anarchy.

any )ould observe that there is nothing anarchistic about this proposal9 indeed, names aside, it fits

easily into the orthodo state*socialist tradition. @a&unin )ould have probably ridiculed such ideas asauthoritarian arist socialism in disguise, and predicted that the leading anarchist revolutionaries)ould s)iftly become the ne) despots. @ut WetAel is perhaps right that many or even most historicalanarcho*syndicalists )ere championing the system outlined in his preceding uotation. (e goes on toadd that M#Nf you loo& at the concept of state in the very abstract )ay it often is in the social sciences,as in Webers definition, then )hat the anarcho*syndicalists )ere proposing is not elimination of thestate or government, but its radical democratiAation. 0hat )as not ho) anarchists themselves spo&eabout it, but it can be plausibly argued that this is a logical conseuence of a certain ma!or stream ofleft*anarchist thought./

Lonald historically the largest 6uropeananarchist movementB strongly undermines WetAels claim, ho)ever. 0here )ere t)o )ell*developedlines of thought, both of )hich favored the abolition of the Htate in the broad Weberian sense of the)ord, and )hich did indeed believe that the )or&ers should literally have control over their)or&places. -fter distinguishing the rural and the urban tendencies among the Hpanish ideologists,bourgeois or )or&ing classB )as considered an oppressive po)er tout court P not as the organiAationof a particular classs coercive po)er. 0he state in conseuence, rather than the eistence of thecapitalist mode of production )hich gave rise to its particular form, often appeared as the ma!or enemy.0he state did not have to be ta&en, crushed, and a ne) P revolutionary P po)er established. o. #f itcould be s)ept a)ay, abolished, everything else, including oppression, disappeared. 0he capitalistorder )as simply displaced by the ne)*)on )or&ers freedom to administer the )or&places they hadta&en over. Helf*organiAed in autonomous communes or in all*po)erful syndicates, the )or&ers, as theprimary factor in production, dispensed )ith the bourgeoisie. 0he conseuences of this )ere seen in the1'3" @arcelona revolution9 capitalist production and mar&et relations continued to eist )ithincollectiviAed industry.

Everall, the syndicalist is probably the best elaborated of the left*anarchist systems. @ut others in the

broader tradition imagine individuals forming communes and cooperatives )hich )ould be lessspecialiAed and more self* sufficient than the typical one*product*line anarcho* syndicalist firm. 0hesenotions are often closely lin&ed to the idea of creating a more environmentally sound society, in )hichsmall and decentraliAed collectives redirect their energies to)ards a ;reener )ay of life.

any left*anarchists and anarchist sympathiAers have also been attracted to ;uild Hocialism in oneform or another. 6conomist Loger -. c8ain thoughtfully eplores ;uild Hocialism as an alternativeto both capitalism and the state in ;uild Hocialism Leconsidered,/ one of his )or&ing papers. 0o vie)it, clic& here.


8/34

Gropot&ins lucid essay Fa) and -uthority/ gives a thoughtful presentation of the left*anarchistsvie) of la). 7rimitive human societies, eplains Gropot&in, live by )hat legal thin&ers call customaryla)/ an un)ritten but broadly understood body of rules and appropriate behavior bac&ed up primarilyby social pressure. Gropot&in considers this sort of behavioral regulation to be unob!ectionable, andprobably consistent )ith his envisaged anarchist society. @ut )hen centraliAed governments codifiedcustomary la), they mingled the sensible dictates of tribal conscience )ith governmental sanctions for

eploitation and in!ustice. -s Gropot&in )rites, MFNegislators confounded in one code the t)o currentsof custom O the maims )hich represent principles of morality and social union )rought out as aresult of life in common, and the mandates )hich are meant to ensure eternal eistence to ineuality.8ustoms, absolutely essential to the very being of society, are, in the code, cleverly intermingled )ithusages imposed by the ruling caste, and both claim eual respect from the cro)d. Do not &ill, says thecode, and hastens to add, -nd pay tithes to the priest. Do not steal, says the code, and immediatelyafter, (e )ho refuses to pay taes, shall have his hand struc& off./

Ho perhaps Gropot&ins ideal society )ould live under the guidance of a reformed customary la)stripped of the class legislation )ith )hich it is no) so closely associated. @ut Gropot&in continues togive )hat appear to be arguments against even customary la) prohibiting e.g. murder. -lmost allviolent crime is actually caused by poverty and ineuality created by eisting la). - small residual of

violent crime might persist, but efforts to handle it by legal channels are futile. Why? @ecausepunishment has no effect on crime, especially such crimes of passion as )ould survive the abolition ofprivate property. oreover, criminals should not be !udged )ic&ed, but rather treated as )e no) treatthe sic& and disadvantaged.

ost left*anarchists probably hold to a mi of Gropot&ins fairly distinct positions on la) and crime.6isting la) should be replaced by sensible and communitarian customs9 and the critic of anarchismunderestimates the etent to )hich eisting crime is in fact a product of the legal systems perpetuationof ineuality and poverty. -nd since punishment is not an effective deterrent, and criminals are notultimately responsible for their misdeeds, a strictly enforced legal code may be undesirable any)ay.

Home other crucial features of the left*anarchist society are uite unclear. Whether dissidents )ho

despised all forms of communal living )ould be permitted to set up their o)n inegalitarian separatistsocieties is rarely touched upon. Eccasionally left*anarchists have insisted that small farmers and theli&e )ould not be forcibly collectiviAed, but the limits of the right to refuse to adopt an egalitarian )ayof life are rarely specified.

=- Ho( (ould anarcho


9/34

economists such as -dam Hmith, David (ume, and :ean*@aptiste Hay in high regard, as )ell as moremodern economists such as :oseph Hchumpeter, Fud)ig von ises, such as the -nglo*-merican common la)B originated not in legislatures, but fromthe decentraliAed rulings of !udges. >0he anarcho*capitalist shares Gropot&ins interest in customaryla), but normally believes that it reuires etensive moderniAation and articulation.B

0he anarcho*capitalist typically hails modern societys increasing reliance on private security guards,gated communities, arbitration and mediation, and other demonstrations of the free mar&ets ability tosupply the defensive and legal services normally assumed to be of necessity a government monopoly.#n his ideal society, these mar&et alternatives to government services )ould ta&e over all legitimatesecurity services. Ene plausible mar&et structure )ould involve individuals subscribing to one of alarge number of competing police services9 these police services )ould then set up contracts ornet)or&s for peacefully handling disputes bet)een members of each others agencies. -lternately,police services might be bundled/ )ith housing services, !ust as landlords often bundle )ater and

po)er )ith rental housing, and gardening and security are today provided to residents in gatedcommunities and apartment complees.

0he underlying idea is that contrary to popular belief, private police )ould have strong incentives to bepeaceful and respect individual rights. a problem parallel to the )ell*&no)n adverse selection problem/ ine.g. medical insurance J the problem being that high*ris& people are especially li&ely to see&insurance, )hich drives up the price )hen ris&iness is hard for the insurer to discern or if regulationreuires a uniform price regardless of ris&B. -narcho*capitalists generally give little credence to the

vie) that their private police agencies/ )ould be euivalent to todays afia J the cost advantagesof open, legitimate business )ould ma&e criminal police/ uncompetitive. -s David


10/34


11/34

violent chaos-!

0he most common criticism, shared by the entire range of critics, is basically that anarchism )oulds)iftly degenerate into a chaotic (obbesian )ar of all*against*all. 0hus the communist


12/34

7roudhon and @a&unin. 0he ultimate result of this protracted battle of )ords )as to split the 1'th*century )or&ers movement into t)o distinct factions. #n the 2+th century, the )ar of )ords ended inblo)s )hile arist*Feninists sometimes cooperated )ith anarchists during the early stages of theLussian and Hpanish revolutions, violent struggle bet)een them )as the rule rather than the eception.bet)een them )as the rule rather than the eception.

0here )ere at least three distinct arguments that ar aimed at his anarchist opponents.


13/34

;overnment @, has robbed him9 a suad of 7olice - proceeds to r. :ones house and is met at the doorby a suad of 7olice @, )ho declare that they do not recogniAe the authority of ;overnment -. Whathappens then? 5ou ta&e it from there./ (er third argument )as that anarcho*capitalism )as anepression of an irrational sub!ectivist epistemology )hich )ould allo) each person to decide forhimself or herself )hether the use of physical force )as !ustified. meaning, presumably, both publicly &no)n and

morally validB.Lands arguments )ere ans)ered at length in Loy 8hilds Eb!ectivism and the Htate -n Epen Fetterto -yn Land,/ )hich tried to convince her that only the anarcho*capitalist position )as consistent )ithher vie) that the initiation of force )as immoral. #n brief, 8hilds argued that li&e other free*mar&etinstitutions, private police )ould have economic incentives to perform their tas&s peacefully andefficiently police )ould negotiate arbitration agreements in advance precisely to avoid the &ind ofstand*off that Land feared, and an ob!ective legal code could be developed by free*mar&et !udges.8hilds strongly contested Lands claim that anarcho*capitalism had any relation to irrationalism9 anindividual could be rational or irrational in his !udgment to use defensive violence, !ust as agovernment could be rational or irrational in its !udgment to do so. -s 8hilds ueried, @y )hatepistemological criterion is an individuals action classified as arbitrary, )hile that of a group of

individuals is someho) ob!ective?/

Lobert oAic& launched the other famous attempt to refute the anarcho*capitalist on libertariangrounds. @asically, oAic& argued that the supply of police and legal services )as a geographic naturalmonopoly, and that therefore a state )ould emerge by the invisible hand/ processes of the mar&etitself. 0he details of his argument are rather comple oAic& postulated a right, strongly contested byother libertarians, to prohibit activities )hich )ere eceptionally ris&y to others9 he then added that thepersons )hose actions )ere so prohibited )ere entitled to compensation. Csing these t)o principles,oAic& claimed that the dominant protection agency in a region could !ustifiably prohibit competitionon the grounds that it )as too ris&y,/ and therefore become an ultra*minimal state./ @ut at this point,it )ould be obligated to compensate consumers )ho )ere prohibited from purchasing competitorsservices, so it )ould do so in &ind by giving them access to its o)n police and legal services J thereby

becoming a minimal state. -nd none of these steps, according to oAic&, violates libertarian rights.

0here have been literally doAens of anarchist attac&s on oAic&s derivation of the minimal state. 0obegin )ith, no state arose in the manner oAic& describes, so all eisting states are illegitimate and stillmerit abolition. Hecondly, anarcho*capitalists dispute oAic&s assumption that defense is a naturalmonopoly, noting that the modern security guard and arbitration industries are etremely decentraliAedand competitive. ue o anarchis"

0he conservative critiue of anarchism is much less developed, but can be teased out of the )ritings ofsuch authors as 6dmund @ur&e, Lussell Gir&, and 6rnest van den (aag. >#nterestingly, @ur&e scholarsare still debating )hether the early @ur&es uasi*anarchistic - Kindication of atural Hociety )as aserious )or& or a subtle satire.B

@ur&e )ould probably say that, li&e other radical ideologues, the anarchists place far too much relianceon their imperfect reason and not enough on the accumulated )isdom of tradition. Hociety functionsbecause )e have gradually evolved a system of )or&able rules. #t seems certain that @ur&e )ouldapply his critiue of the


14/34

ne), they are in no sort of fear )ith regard to the duration of a building run up in haste9 becauseduration is no ob!ect to those )ho thin& little or nothing has been done before their time, and )ho placeall their hopes in discovery./ 0o attempt to replace the )isdom of the ages )ith a priori theories of!ustice is sure to lead to disaster, because functional policies must be !udicious compromises bet)eenimportant competing ends. Er in @ur&es )ords, 0he science of constructing a common)ealth, orrenovating it, or reforming it, is, li&e every other eperimental science, not to be taught a priori. or is

it a short eperience that can instruct us in that practical science9 because the real effects of moralcauses are not al)ays immediate./ 0he probable result of any attempt to realiAe anarchist principles)ould be a brief period of revolutionary Aeal, follo)ed by chaos and social brea&do)n resulting fromthe impracticality of the revolutionary policies, and finally ending in a brutal dictator )inning)idespread support by simply restoring order and rebuilding the peoples sense of social stability.

any anarchists )ould in fact accept @ur&es critiue of violent revolution, )hich is )hy they favoradvancing their vie)s gradually through education and nonviolent protest. #n fact, @a&unins analysisof arism as the ideology >i.e., rationaliAation for the class interests ofB middle*class intellectuals infact differs little from @ur&es analysis @a&unin, li&e @ur&e, perceived that no matter ho) oppressivethe current system may be, there are al)ays po)er*hungry individuals )ho favor violent revolution astheir most practical route to absolute po)er. 0heir protests against actual in!ustices must be seen in

light of their ultimate aim of imposing even more ruthless despotism upon the people.

En other issues, anarchists )ould disagree strongly )ith several of @ur&es claims. any forms ofmisery stem from the blind adherence to tradition9 and rational thin&ing has spar&ed countlessimprovements in human society ever since the decline of traditional despotism. oreover, anarchistsdo not propose to do a)ay )ith valuable traditions, but simply reuest evidence that particulartraditions are valuable before they lend them their support. -nd )hat is to be done )hen J as isusually the case J a society harbors a )ide range of mutually incompatible traditions?

-narchists might also ob!ect that the @ur&ean analysis relies too heavily upon tradition as a resultrather than a process. 8ultural evolution may constantly )eed out foolish ideas and practices, but ithardly follo)s that such follies have already perished9 for the state to defend tradition is to strangle the

competitive process )hich tends to ma&e tradition sensible. -s Kincent 8oo& eplains M#Nt is preciselybecause )isdom has to be accumulated in incremental steps that it cannot be centrally planned by anysingle political or religious authority, contrary to the aspirations of conservatives and collectivists ali&e.While the collectivists are indeed guilty of trying to rationalistically reconstruct society in defiance oftradition >a valid criticism of left*anarchistsB, conservatives on the other hand are guilty of trying tofreeAe old traditions in place. 8onservatives have forgotten that the process of )isdom accumulation isan on*going one, and instead have opted for the notion that some eisting body of traditions >usually:udeo*8hristianB already represent social perfection./

Lussell Gir&, noted @ur&e scholar, has )ritten a brief critiue of the modern libertarian movement.>-nother conservative, 6rnest van den (aag, )rote a lengthier essay )ith a similar theme andperspective.B #n all li&elihood, Gir& )ould apply many >but not allB of the same arguments to left*

anarchists.

Gir& faults the libertarians >and )hen he discusses libertarians/ he usually seems to have the anarcho*capitalists in mindB on at least si counts.


15/34

Feft*anarchists )ould perhaps agree )ith Gir& on points three and si. Ho if Gir& )ere to epand hisattac& on anarchism to encompass the left*anarchists as )ell, he might acuit them of these t)ocharges. 0he remaining four, ho)ever, Gir& )ould probably apply eually to anarchists of bothvarieties.

(o) )ould anarchists reply to Gir&s criticisms? En the moral transcendence/ issue, they )ould pointout there have been religious as )ell as non*religious anarchists9 and moreover, many non*religious

anarchists still embrace moral ob!ectivism >notably anarchists in the broader natural la) traditionB.ost anarchists )ould deny that they ma&e self* interest the only possible social bond9 and even those)ho )ould affirm this >such as anarcho*capitalists influenced by -yn LandB have a broad conception ofself*interest consistent )ith the -ristotelian tradition.

-s to the priority of order over liberty, many anarchists influenced by e.g. Gropot&in )ould reply thatas )ith other animal species, order and cooperation emerge as a result, not a conseuence of freedom9)hile anarcho* capitalists )ould probably refer Gir& to the theorists of spontaneous order/ such as(aye&, (ume, Hmith, and even 6dmund @ur&e himself.

0he definitionallyB benothing to stop them. @ut ho) does this differ from )hat )e have no)? ;overnments rule becausethey have the might to maintain their po)er9 in short, because there is no superior agency to restrainthem. (ence, reason some critics of anarchism, the goal of anarchists is futile because )e are already ina state of anarchy.

This ar4u"ent is conused on several levels-

oreover, it overloo&s the definitional differences bet)eengovernment and other forms of organiAed aggression9 Weber in particular noted thatgovernments claim a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given geographical region.B#n fact, )hile anarchism is logically compatible )ith any vie)point )hich re!ects the eistenceof the state, there have been etremely fe) >perhaps noB anarchists )ho combined theiradvocacy of anarchism )ith support for domination by those most s&illed in violence.

Hecond, it seems to assume that all that particular anarchists advocate is the abolition of thestate9 but as )e have seen, anarchism is normally combined )ith additional normative vie)sabout )hat ought to replace the state. 0hus, most anarchist theorists believe more than merely

that the state should not eist9 they also believe that e.g. society should be based upon voluntarycommunes, or upon strict private property rights, etc.

0hird, the argument sometimes confuses a definitional )ith a causal claim. #t is one thing toargue that anarchy )ould lead to the rule by the strongest9 this is a causal claim about the li&elyresults of the attempt to create an anarchist society. #t is another thing entirely to argue thatanarchy means rule by the strongest. 0his is simply a linguistic confusion, best illustrated bynoting that under this definition anarchy and the state are logically compatible.

A related but "ore sophisticated ar4u"ent, 4enerally leveled a4ainst anarcho< capitalists, runs asollo(s-


16/34


17/34

society is bad9 but rather than lay out any comprehensive plans for its abolition, this sort of anarchiststic&s to more immediate reforms. -narchism of this sort is a &ind of ideal dream, )hich is beautifuland inspiring to contemplate )hile )e pursue more concrete aims.

0he emotivist anarchist often focuses on action and disdains theoriAing. #n contrast, another breed ofanarchists, &no)n as philosophical anarchists,/ see fe) practical implications of their intellectualposition. @est represented by Lobert 7aul Wolff, philosophical anarchism simply denies that the states

orders as such can confer any legitimacy )hatever. 6ach individual must eercise his moral autonomyto !udge right and )rong for himself, irrespective of the states decrees. (o)ever, insofar as the statesdecrees accord )ith ones private conscience, there is no need to change ones behavior. - position li&eWolffs says, in essence, that the rational person cannot and must not offer the blind obedience toauthority that governments often seem to demand9 but this insight need not spar& any political action ifones governments decrees are not unusually immoral.

5et another faction, strongly influenced by Feo 0olstoy, refer to themselves as 8hristian anarchists./>0olstoy avoided the term anarchist,/ probably because of its association )ith violence and terrorismin the minds of contemporary Lussians.B Dra)ing on the ;ospels themes of nonviolence and theeuality of all human beings, these anarchists condemn government as contrary to 8hristian teaching.0olstoy particularly emphasiAed the immorality of )ar, military service, and patriotism, challenging8hristians to live up to the radical implications of their faith by )ithdra)ing their support from allthree of these evils. 0olstoys essay 7atriotism, or 7eace?/ is particularly notable for its early attac&upon nationalism and the bloodshed that usually accompanies it.

paradoicallyB the moral anarchists have little interest in high*level moral theory. @ut this has beenof great interest to the more intellectual sorts of anarchists.

Ene popular argument for anarchism is that it is the only )ay for true socialism to eist. Htate*

socialism is unable to actually establish human euality9 instead it simply creating a ne) ruling class.@a&unin prophetically predicted the results of socialists seiAing control of the state )hen he )rote thatthe socialist elite )ould form a ne) class/ )hich )ould be the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant,and contemptuous of all regimes./ 6lse)here @a&unin )rote that M


18/34

attempt to impose a monopolistic government necessarily prevents competing police and !udicialservices from providing a legitimate service9 moreover, so long as government eists taation )illpersist. 0he governments claim to defend private property is thus uite ironic, for the state, inLothbards )ords, is an institution that presumes to defend person and property by itself subsistingon the unilateral coercion against private property &no)n as taation./ Ether anarcho* capitalists suchas David Ether individualist anarchists have argued that contrary to Hpooner and 0uc&er, free ban&ing)ould lead to a much lo)er rate of inflation than )e eperience today9 that rent and interest are not dueto monopoly/ but to scarcity of land and loanable funds9 and that there is no moral distinction bet)een

labor and rental or interest income, all of )hich depend upon a miture of scarcity, demand, luc&, andeffort.B

- basic moral intuition that probably anarchists of all varieties share is simply that no one has the rightto rule another person. 0he interpretation of rulership,/ ho)ever, varies left anarchists tend to see theemployer*employee relationship as one of rulership, and anarcho*capitalists are often dubious of theclaim that envisaged anarchists communes )ould be democratic and hence voluntary. - closely relatedmoral intuition, again )idely shared by all sorts of anarchists, is that each person should eercisepersonal autonomy, or self*rule. Ene should uestion authority, and ma&e up ones mind for oneselfrather than simply follo)ing the herd. -gain, the interpretation of personal autonomy/ varies the left*anarchist sees the employer*employee relationship as inherently violating personal autonomy, )hereasthe anarcho*capitalist is more li&ely to see personal autonomy disappearing in the commune or

collective, regardless of ho) democratically they run themselves.

3- .hat are the "a6or debates bet(een anarchists/ .hat are the recurrin4 ar4u"ents/

Without a doubt, the most repeated debate among modern anarchists is fought bet)een the left*anarchists on one side and the anarcho*capitalists on the other. Ef course, there are occasional debatesbet)een different left*anarchist factions, but probably most of them )ould be content )ith an anarchistsociety populated by some miture of communes, )or&er*controlled firms, and cooperatives. -ndsimilarly there are a fe) internal debates bet)een anarcho* capitalists, notably the tension bet)eenLothbards natural la) anarcho*capitalism and David


19/34

of private property >merely believing that some eisting sorts of property )ere illegitimate, )ithoutopposing private property as suchB.

-s @en!amin 0uc&er )rote in 1%%$, #t )ill probably surprise many )ho &no) nothing of 7roudhonsave his declaration that property is robbery to learn that he )as perhaps the most vigorous hater of8ommunism that ever lived on this planet. @ut the apparent inconsistency vanishes )hen you read hisboo& and find that by property he means simply legally privileged )ealth or the po)er of usury, and

not at all the possession by the laborer of his products./

or did an ardent anarcho*communist li&e Gropot&in deny 7roudhon or even 0uc&er the title ofanarchist./ #n his odern Hcience and -narchism, Gropot&in discusses not only 7roudhon but the-merican anarchist individualists )ho )ere represented in the fifties by H.7. -ndre)s and W. ;reene,later on by Fysander Hpooner, and no) are represented by @en!amin 0uc&er, the )ell*&no)n editor ofthe e) 5or& Fiberty./ Himilarly in his article on anarchism for the 1'1+ edition of the 6ncyclopedia@ritannica, Gropot&in again freely mentions the -merican individualist anarchists, including@en!amin 0uc&er, )hose !ournal Fiberty )as started in 1%%1 and )hose conceptions are acombination of those of 7roudhon )ith those of (erbert Hpencer./

b- Anarchis" o variant @ is unstable and (ill lead to the re


20/34

them. -nother is to claim that anarchism )ill change >or cease to )arpB human attitudes so that they)ill be more communitarian and less individualistic. the associates/ as )ell as the secretaries, cler&s, etc.B

d- Anarchis" o type @ (ould be (orse than the state-!

0o the left*anarchist, the society envisaged by the anarcho* capitalists often seems far )orse than )hat)e have no).


21/34

economic theory, it seems to the latter that anarcho*capitalism )ould be a practical disaster. Feft*anarchists often euate anarcho*capitalism )ith social Dar)inism and even fascism, arguing that thecruel idea of survival of the fittest/ underlies them all.

0he anarcho*capitalist, in turn, often suspects that the left* anarchists )orld )ould be )orse than the)orld of today. Cnder anarcho*capitalism, individuals )ould still have every right to voluntarily pooltheir property to form communes, )or&er*controlled firms, and cooperatives9 they )ould simply be

unable to force dissenters to !oin them. Hince this fact rarely impresses the left*anarchist, the anarcho*capitalist often concludes that the left*anarchist )ill not be satisfied )ith freedom for his preferredlifestyle9 he )ants to force his communal lifestyle on everyone. ot only )ould this be a gross denialof human freedom, but it )ould >according to the anarcho*capitalistB be li&ely to have disastrous effectson economic incentives, and s)iftly lead humanity into miserable poverty. 0he anarcho*capitalist isalso freuently disturbed by the opposition to all order sometimes voiced by left*anarchists9 for he feelsthat only coerced order is bad and )elcomes the promotion of an orderly society by voluntary means.Himilarly, the left*anarchists occasional short time horiAon, emphasis on immediate satisfaction, andlo) regard for )or& >)hich can be seen in a number of authors strongly influenced by emotivistanarchismB frighten the anarcho*capitalist considerably.

e- tc-

- large number of arguments that go bac& and forth basically duplicate the standard socialist vs.capitalist debate. 0he need or lac& thereof for incentives, security, euality, regulation, protection of theenvironment, and so on are debated etensively on other sources on the et, and there are several


22/34

)ell off as possible, given the utilities of the other agents./ @etter/ and )orse/ are based purely uponsub!ective preferences )hich can be summariAed in a utility function,/ or ordinal numerical inde ofpreference satisfaction.

While initially it might seem that every situation is necessarily 7areto optimal, this is not the case. 0rue,if the only good is food, and each agent )ants as much food as possible, then every distribution is7areto optimal. @ut if half of the agents o)n food and the other half o)n clothes, the distribution )ill

not necessarily be 7areto optimal, since each agent might prefer either more food and fe)er clothes orvice versa.

ormally, economists )ould epect agents to voluntarily trade in any situation )hich is not 7aretooptimal9 but neoclassical theorists have considered a number of situations in )hich trade )ould be adifficult route to 7areto optimality. #n the )or&s of Lichard 7osner, this economisticcost*benefit approach to policy decisions is called )ealth*maimiAation/9 a common synonym isGaldor*(ic&s efficiency./B With cost*benefit analysis, there is no pretense made that governmentpolicy en!oys unanimous approval. 0hus, it is open to the many ob!ections freuently made to e.g.

utilitarianism9 moreover, since cost*benefit analysis is based upon agents )illingness to pay, ratherthan on agents utility, it runs into even more moral paradoes than utilitarianism typically does.

#n the final analysis, )elfare economists attempt to provide a value*free or at least value*minimal!ustification of the state fails uite badly. evertheless, economic analysis may still inform moresubstantive moral theories 7areto optimality, for eample, is a necessary but not sufficient conditionfor a utilitarian !ustification of the state.

b- The public 4oods proble"

0he public goods/ argument is certainly the most popular economic argument for the state. #tallegedly sho)s that the eistence of government can be 7areto optimal, and that the non*eistence ofthe state cannot be 7areto optimal9 or at least, it sho)s that the eistence of government is !ustifiable oncost*benefit grounds. Hupposedly, there eist important services, such as national defense, )hichbenefit people )hether they pay for them or not. 0he result is that selfish agents refuse to contribute,leading to disaster. 0he only )ay to solve this problem is to coerce the beneficiaries to raise the fundsto supply the needed good. #n order for this coercion to )or&, it needs to be monopoliAed by a singleagency, the state.

7ublic goods arguments have been made not only for national defense, but for police, roads, education,LRD, scientific research, and many other goods and services. 0he essential definitional feature ofpublic goods is non* ecludability/9 because the benefits cannot be limited to contributors, there is no


23/34

incentive to contribute. >- second definitional characteristic often attributed to public goods is non*rivalrousness/9 my o)n vie) is that this second attribute !ust confuses the issue, since )ithout the non*ecludability problem, non*rivalrousness )ould merely be another instance of the ubiuitous practiceof pricing above marginal cost.B

0he concept of eternalities is very closely connected to the concept of public goods9 the maindifference is that economists usually thin& of eternalities as being both positive/ >e.g. LRD spill*

oversB and negative/ >e.g. pollutionB, )hereas they usually dont discuss public bads./ #n any case,again )e have the problem that agents perform actions )hich harm or benefit other people, and theharmIbenefit is non*ecludable./ Kictims of negative eternalities cant feasibly charge polluters a feefor suffering, and beneficiaries of positive eternalities cant feasibly be charged for their en!oyment.;overnment is supposed to be necessary to correct this inefficiency. >-s usual, it is the inefficiencyrather than the in!ustice that economists focus upon.B

Feft*anarchists and anarcho*capitalists )ould probably have remar&ably similar replies to thisargument, although doubtlessly the tone and emphasis )ould vary.

Ob6ection * The behavorial assu"ptions o public 4oods theory are alse-

#t is simply not true that people al)ays act in their narro) self*interest. 8harity eists, and there is no

reason to thin& that the charitable impulse might not be cultivated to handle public goods problemsvoluntarily on an adeuate basis. or need charity as such be the only motive in Hocial 8ontract, but not all thatB )hich people )ant for themselves or for others. 0he third is for homooeconomicus, maimiAing a narro)ly defined utility that varies only )ith the moneys )orth of hiso)n payoffs./

#n short, much of the public goods problem is an artificial creation of economists unrealisticassumptions about human nature. -narchists )ould surely disagree among themselves about humannature, but almost all )ould agree that there is more to the human character than (obbesian self*interest. Home people may be amoral, but most are not. oreover, charitable impulses can even giveincentives to uncharitable people to behave fairly. #f the public boycotts products of polluters, thepolluters may find that it is cheaper to clean up their act than lose the publics business.

#nterestingly, many economists have eperimentally tested the predictions of public goods theory.>0ypically, these eperiments involve groups of human sub!ects playing for real money.B 0he almostuniversal result is that the central prediction of public goods theory >i.e., that no one )ill voluntarilycontribute to the production of a public goodB is totally false. While the level of contributions rarely

euals the 7areto*optimal level, it never even approaches the Aero* provision level that public goodstheory predicts. HummariAing the eperimental literature, Douglas Davis and 8harles (olt )riteMHNub!ects rather persistently contributed 4+ to "+ percent of their to&en endo)ments to the groupechange, far in ecess of the + percent contributions rateO/ Hubseuent eperiments eamined theconditions under )hich voluntary provision is most successful9 see Davis and (olts 6perimental6conomics for details.

Ob6ection 0* Eovern"ent is not the only possible (ay to provide public 4oods-

6ven if individuals act in their narro) self*interest, it is not true that government is the only )ay to


24/34

manage public goods and eternalities problems. Why couldnt a left* anarchist commune or ananarcho*capitalist police firm do the !ob that the neoclassical economist assumes must be delegated tothe government? 0he left*anarchist )ould probably be particularly insistent on this point, since mosteconomists usually assume that government and the mar&et are the only )ays to do things. @utthriving, voluntary communities might build roads, regulate pollution, and ta&e over other importanttas&s no) handled by government.

-narcho*capitalists, for their part, )ould happily agree )hile they usually loo& to the mar&et as a firstsolution, they appreciate other &inds of voluntary organiAations too fraternal societies, clubs, family,etc. @ut anarcho*capitalists )ould probably note that left*anarchists overloo& the )ays that the mar&etmight ta&e over government services J indeed, malls and gated communities sho) ho) roads,security, and eternalities can be handled by contract rather than coercion.

Ob6ection 1* #ublic 4oods are rarer than you "i4ht thin%-

-narcho*capitalists )ould emphasiAe that a large number of alleged public goods/ and eternalities/could easily be handled privately by for*profit business if only the government )ould allo) thedefinition of private property rights. #f ranchers over*graAe the commons, )hy not privatiAe thecommons? #f fishermen over*fish the oceans, )hy not parcel out large strips of the ocean by longitude

and latitude to for profit*ma&ing auaculture? -nd )hy is education supposed to create eternalitiesany more than any other sort of investment? Himilarly, many sorts of eternalities are no) handled )ithprivate property rights. 0ort la), for eample, can give people an incentive to ta&e the lives andproperty of others into account )hen they ta&e ris&s.

Ob6ection 3* ?ternalities are a result o the proit


25/34

be a)are of this difficulty9 in particular, public choice theory in economics emphasiAes the eternalitiesinherent in government action. @ut a double standard persists )hile non*governmental eternalitiesmust be corrected by the state, )e simply have to uietly endure the eternalities inherent in politicalprocess.

Hince there is no incentive to monitor the government, democracies must rely upon voluntary donationsof intelligence and virtue. @ecause good government depends upon these voluntary donations, the

public goods argument for government falls apart. 6ither unpaid virtue can ma&e government )or&, in)hich case government isnt necessary to solve the public goods problem9 or unpaid virtue isinsufficient to ma&e government )or&, in )hich case the government cannot be trusted to solve thepublic goods problem.

David


26/34

moderate anti* 0olstoyans )ho merely uphold the right to use violence for self*defense. Ef course, theirdefinition of self*defense/ might very )ell include using violence to hinder immoral state actions orthe functioning of the capitalist system.

0he anarcho*capitalist critiue of 0olstoyan pacifism is some)hat different. 0he anarcho*capitalistgenerally distinguishes bet)een initiatory force against person or property >)hich he vie)s as )rongB,and retaliatory force >)hich he vie)s as acceptable and possibly meritoriousB. 0he anarcho*capitalist

condemns the state precisely because it institutionaliAes the initiation of force )ithin society. 8riminalsdo the same, differing only in their lac& of perceived legitimacy. #n principle, both private/ criminalsand the public/ criminals )ho run the government may be both resisted and punished. While it may beimprudent or counter*productive to openly resist state authority >!ust as it might be foolish to resist agang of )ell* armed mobstersB, there is a right to do so.

b- #aciis" as opposition to (ar

-lmost all anarchists, in contrast, )ould agree in their condemnation of )arfare, i.e., violent conflictbet)een governments. Feft*anarchists and anarcho*capitalists both loo& upon )ars as grotesuestruggles bet)een ruling elites )ho treat the lives of their o)n/ people as ependable and the lives ofthe other sides/ people as )orthless. #t is here that anarchisms strong distinction bet)een society and

the state becomes clearest )hereas most people see )ar as a struggle bet)een societies, anarchiststhin& that )ar is actually a battle bet)een governments )hich greatly harms even the society )hosegovernment is victorious. What is most pernicious about nationalist ideology is that is ma&es themembers of society identify their interests )ith those of their government, )hen in fact their interestsare not merely different but in conflict. #n short, anarchists of both sorts )ould readily accede toLandolph @ournes remar& that War is the health of the state./

Feft*anarchists opposition to )ar is uite similar to the general condemnation of )ar epressed bymore mainstream international socialists. En this vie), )ar is created by capitalism, in particular thestruggle for access to mar&ets in the 0hird World. Wor&ingmen have no country/ and should refuse tosupport these intra*capitalist struggles9 )hy should they pay the dire cost of )ar )hen victory )illmerely leave them more oppressed and eploited than before? oreover, )hile Western democracies

often advocate )ar in the name of !ustice and humanitarianism, the aim andIor end result is to defendtraditional authoritarianism and destroy the lives of millions of innocent people. Within the Westerndemocracies, the left* anarchists hatred for )ar is often intensified by some sense of sympathy forindigenous revolutionary movements. While these movements are often state*socialist in intent, theleft* anarchist often believes that these movements are less bad than the traditional authoritarianismagainst )hich they struggle. oreover, the Wests policy of propping up local dictators leads relativelynon*authoritarian socialist movements to increasing degrees of totalitarianism. oam 8homs&y isalmost certainly the most influential representative of the left*anarchist approach to foreign policy (esees a consistent pattern of the Cnited Htates proclaiming devotion to human rights )hile supportingdictatorships by any means necessary.

0he anarcho*capitalist critiue of )ar is similar in many )ays to e.g. 8homs&ys analysis, but has adifferent lineage and emphasis. -s can be seen particularly in urray Lothbards )ritings, the anarcho*capitalist vie) of )ar dra)s heavily upon both the anti*)ar classical liberals of the 1%th and 1'thcenturies, and the long*standing -merican isolationist tradition. 6arly classical liberal theorists such as-dam Hmith,Lichard 8obden, and :ohn @right >and later orman -ngellB argued that )arfare )ascaused by mercantilism, by the prevailing alliance bet)een governments and their favored businesselites. 0he solution, in their vie), )as to end the incestuous connection bet)een business andgovernment. 0he -merican isolationists )ere probably influenced by this broader classical liberaltradition, but placed more emphasis on the idea that foreign )ars )ere at best a silly distraction, and at)orst a rationaliAation for tyranny. @oth vie)s argued that balance of po)er/ politics lead inevitably


27/34

to endless )arfare and unrestrained military spending.

@uilding upon these t)o interrelated traditions, anarcho* capitalists have built a multi*layered attac&upon )arfare. according to libertarianrights theoryB for the )idespread murderous attac&s upon innocent civilians J )hether by bomb orstarvation bloc&ade. Hecondly, the )ars )aged by the Western democracies in the 2+th* century haddisastrous, unforeseen conseuences World War # paved the )ay for 8ommunist, fascist, and aAi

totalitarianism9 and World War ##, by creating po)er vacuums in 6urope and -sia, turned over a billionhuman beings to Htalinist despotism. 0he anarcho*capitalist sees these results as predictable rather thanmerely accidental !ust as rulers hubris leads them to try to improve the free* mar&et economy, only tofind that in their ignorance they have )rec&ed terrible harm, so too does the fatal conceit/ of thenational security advisor lead Western democracies to spend billions of dollars and millions of livesbefore he finds that he has inadvertently paved the )ay for totalitarianism. 0he anarcho*capitaliststhird point against )ar is that its only sure result is to aid the domestic epansion of state po)er9 andpredictably, )hen )ars end, the states po)er never contracts to its original limits.

9- Have there been any historical e?a"ples o anarchist societies/

0here have probably been no societies )hich fully satisfy any anarchists ethical ideals, but there have

been a number of suggestive eamples.Feft*anarchists most often cite the anarchist communes of the Hpanish 8ivil War as eamples of viableanarchist societies. 0he role of the Hpanish anarchists in the Hpanish 8ivil War has perhaps generatedmore debate on alt.society.anarchy than any other historical issue. Hince this aB 0heHpanish anarchist political organiAations and unions began and remained democratic throughout the)ar9 >bB 0hat a ma!ority of the citiAenry in areas controlled by the anarchists )as sympathetic to theanarchist movement9 >cB 0hat )or&ers directly controlled factories and businesses that theyepropriated, rather than being sub!ect to strict control by anarchist leaders9 and >dB 0hat the farmcollectives in the anarchist*controlled regions )ere largely voluntary, and rarely eerted coercive

pressure against small farmers )ho refused to !oin. #n contrast, anarcho*capitalist critics such as :amesDonald normally maintain that >aB 0he Hpanish anarchist political organiAations and unions, even ifthey )ere initially democratic, uic&ly transformed into dictatorial oligarchies )ith democratictrappings once the )ar started9 >bB 0hat the Hpanish anarchists, even if they initially en!oyed popularsupport, uic&ly forfeited it )ith their abuse of po)er9 >cB 0hat in many or most cases, )or&er/control meant dictatorial control by the anarchist elite9 and >dB 0hat the farm collectiviAations inanarchist*controlled regions )ere usually coercively formed, totalitarian for their duration, and mar&edby a purely nominal right to remain outside the collective >since non*!oining farmers )ere seriouslypenaliAed in a number of )aysB.


28/34

medieval #celand, but overall this debate is much s&etchier than the debate over the Hpanish 8ivil War.Hee #s edieval #celand an eample of anarcho/*capitalism )or&ing in practice?9 for David-n unpublished fifthvolume in the series defended the )ea&/ -rticles of the 8onfederation against the strong, centraliAedstate established by the C.H. 8onstitution.B

Ene case that has inspired both sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval 6urope. 0he first)ea& lin& in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became 6uropes centers of economicdevelopment, trade, art, and culture. 0hey provided a haven for runa)ay serfs, )ho could often legallygain their freedom if they avoided re*capture for a year and a day. -nd they offer many eamples ofho) people can form mutual*aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Ef course, left*anarchists and anarcho*capitalists ta&e a some)hat different perspective on the free cities the formeremphasiAe the communitarian and egalitarian concerns of the free cities, )hile the latter point to therelatively unregulated nature of their mar&ets and the )ide range of services >often including defense,security, and legal servicesB )hich )ere provided privately or semi*privately. Gropot&ins utual -idcontains an etensive discussion of the free cities of medieval 6urope9 anarcho*capitalists have )rittenless on the sub!ect, but strongly praise the historical treatments in (enri 7irennes edieval 8ities and(arold @ermans Fa) and Levolution.

0he 6nclopedia @rittanica article on -narchism gives at best a cursory summary of anarchist theory,

but does contain useful information on the history of left*anarchist political and labor movements.8lic& here to vie) the article.

:- 8sn2t anarchis" utopian/

Ctopianism is perhaps the most popular criticism made of anarchism. #n an atypically uncharitablepassage in his 6uropean Hocialism, socialist historian 8arl Fandauer states

There is certainly one truth in anarchistic belies) >very large organiation contains an element oveiled or open orce, and every kind o orce is an evil, i we consider its eects on the humancharacter. ?ut is it not the lesser evil9 Can we dispense with orce9 0hen this uestion is clearly put,the case or anarchism seems e&tremely weak. It is true, that the e&periment o an entirely orcelesssociety have never been made. ?ut such evidence as we have does not indicate that ill intentions will

cease to e&ist i repressive orce disappears, and it is clear enough that one ill+intentioned person canupset a large part o society i there is no repressive orce. The act that some intelligent and highlyidealistic men and women have believed and still believe in anarchism shows that there is a type osectarianism which accepts a belie in spite o, or perhaps because o, its apparent absurdity.

-s )e have seen, ho)ever, virtually all anarcho*capitalists and many left*anarchists accept the use offorce in some circumstances. Fandauers remar& )ould be better directed at absolute pacifists ratherthan anarchists in general.

-narchists supposed un)illingness to use force in any circumstance is only one reason )hy they have


29/34

been )idely perceived as utopian. Hometimes the utopian charge is trivial9 if, for eample, any radicalchange is labelled utopian./ #f on the other hand utopian/ simply means that anarchism could )or& ifand only if all people )ere virtuous, and thus in practice )ould lead to the imposition of ne) forms ofoppression, then the uestion is more interesting. #nteresting, because this is more or less the chargethat different types of anarchists freuently bring against each other.

0o the left*anarchist, for eample, anarcho*capitalism is based upon a truly fantastic picture of

economics, in )hich free competition someho) leads to prosperity and freedom for all. 0o them, theanarcho*capitalists vision of economic harmonies/ and the )or&ings of the invisible hand/ are atbest unli&ely, and probably impossible. (ence, in a sense they accuse the anarcho*capitalists ofutopianism.

0he anarcho*capitalists charge the left*anarchists similarly.


30/34

#t is ho)ever true that around the turn of the century, a certain segment of anarchists advocated )hatthey called propaganda by the deed./ Heveral heads of state )ere assassinated by anarchists, along)ith businessmen, industrialists, stoc&*bro&ers, and so on. Ene of the most famous instances )as )henthe young -leander @er&man tried to murder the steel industrialist (enry as they often )ereB.0he basic argument of the advocates of propaganda by the deed/ )as that anarchist terrorism )ouldprovo&e governments J even avo)edly liberal and democratic governments J to resort toincreasingly harsh measures to restore order. -s governments ruthlessness increased, their truecolors/ )ould appear for all to see, leading to more immediate results than mere education andtheoriAing. -s 6.K. Sen&er notes in his -narchism - 8riticism and (istory of the -narchist 0heory, anumber of Western governments )ere driven to adopt anti*terrorist la)s as a result of anarchistterrorism. >Sen&er goes on to note that ;reat @ritain remained true to its liberal heritage by refusing topunish individuals merely for espousing anarchist ideas.B @ut as one might epect, contrary to theterrorists hopes, it )as the reputation of anarchism J peaceful and violent ali&e J )hich sufferedrather than the reputation of the state.

Cndoubtedly the most famous modern terrorist in the tradition of propaganda by the deed/ is the so*called Cnabomber, )ho eplicitly labels himself an anarchist in his no)*famous manifesto. #n hismanifesto, the Cnabomber ma&es relatively little attempt to lin& himself to any particular figures in theanarchist tradition, but professes familiarity and general agreement )ith the anarchistic )ing of theradical environmentalist movement. - large proportion of this )ide*ranging manifesto criticiAesenvironmentalists cooperation )ith socialists, minority rights activists, and other broadly left*)inggroups9 the point of this criticism is not of course to propose an alliance )ith conservatives, but tore!ect alliance )ith people )ho fail to re!ect technology as such. 0he more positive portion of themanifesto argues that freedom and technology are inherently incompatible, and outlines a program forthe destruction of both modern industry and the scientific &no)ledge necessary to sustain it.

0he large ma!ority of anarchists J especially in modern times J fervently oppose the &illing ofinnocents on purely moral grounds >!ust as most non*anarchists presumably do, though anarchists)ould often classify those &illed in )ar as murder victims of the stateB. onviolence and pacifism no)inspire far more anarchist thin&ers than visions of random terror. -narchists from many differentperspectives have been inspired by the )ritings of the 1"th*century


31/34


32/34

#nstitute for (umane Htudies httpIImason.gmu.eduIUihs

iels @uhl (omepage httpII))).math.&u.d&IUbuhl

Fibertarian Web 7age httpIIl)3.ag.uiuc.eduIlibertyIlib)eb.html

#nternational Hociety for #ndividual Fiberty httpII))).creative.netIUstarI

Fibertarian -lliance httpII))).digi)eb.comIigeldardIF-I

David


33/34

#mpossible appear to have been corrected in this lin&ed eerpt.B

7articularly )ell*)ritten and canonical epressions of different anarchist theories are noted )ith anasteris& >VB. @road surveys of anarchism are noted )ith a number sign >B.

V ihail @a&unin. ;od and the Htate

V V i&hail @a&unin. 0he 7olitical 7hilosophy of @a&unin

V i&hail @a&unin. Htatism and -narchy V @ruce @enson. 0he 6nterprise of Fa) :ustice )ithout the Htate

V -leander @er&man. 0he -@8 of -narchism

V 6tienne de la @oetie. 0he Discourse of Koluntary Hervitude >also published as 0he 7olitics ofEbedience the Discourse of Koluntary HervitudeB

V @urnett @olloten. 0he Hpanish 8ivil War Levolution and 8ounterrevolution

V urray @oo&chin. 7ost*Hcarcity -narchism

V 1%%1*1'+%B

V Loy 8hilds. Fiberty -gainst 7o)er

V


34/34

V 7ierre*:oseph 7roudhon. What is 7roperty?

V urray Lothbard. 6galitarianism as a Levolt -gainst ature

V urray Lothbard. 0he 6thics of Fiberty

V V urray Lothbard.

Anarchy Defined

Documents

Transcript of Anarchy Defined