Debating Anarchism

Near the end of last year I was emailed by the author of Waging Nonviolence about a piece he wrote about anarchism called Can peace be obtained through anarchy? He asked me for my opinion so I commented on his website.

I responded with the following:

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’).

To which Mr. Everitt responded:

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.

I responded yet again with the following:

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.