Obviously, people (in general) want a peaceful and happy place to live. They want order. One of the oft-cited reasons that we must have a state is to provide order.
In this post, I will argue that order can be achieved without a coercive gun-bearing state.
1- Order is preferable to Chaos
I think that orderliness is all about planning for the future, it is about predictability. For example, a list of things in alphabetical order makes it so that you can predict where any given item that you're looking for will be found. This makes finding said item much easier.
In an orderly society, the events of tomorrow (or 5, 10, 20 years from now etc) can be reasonably predicted. An orderly society is a predictable society. If you are unsure about what things are going to be like tomorrow, it makes it very hard to decide what to do today in order to influence your tomorrow for the better. I think that the average person is quite interested in creating a better tomorrow for themselves, and having an orderly society makes this possible in ways that just can't be achieved otherwise.
I want to make the world a better place for me, my family, and all humans, and having order basically makes this possible. So, if you are like me and want to make tomorrow better, then order is preferable to chaos.
2- Violence Begets Chaos
Violence inevitably leads to chaos. Imagine a society where violence is commonplace. In this society people kill each other for fun, take each other's stuff, and have no regard for friendship or humanity. One day a person may be your "friend", and the next he is trying to kill you for sport.
In this society nothing productive can happen. If I were to, say, plant a field of wheat, then there is no guarantee that months later when it's harvest time that the crops will still be there, or that I'll still have the tools in my possession to harvest them, or even that I will still be alive. Any investment that doesn't yield immediate gains is folly, because there are no guarantees as to what you'll be able to do (or even if you'll be alive) tomorrow.
Now, imagine a society where there is just 1 person who is violent. In this society, most people can plan for their futures, because most people will never meet that guy. However, anybody that does meet that guy could suddenly have all their plans demolished.
Everything that violence touches becomes less orderly, because violence by it's very nature is unpredictable.
3- Law and Order
Since law is simply peaceful (rather than violent) resolution of disputes between parties, it by it's very definition reduces violence in a society and therefore reduces chaos. Additionally, having a framework (laws) that define how disputes will most likely be resolved provides even more predictability, since one can count on the law to be "on their side" as it were, if a dispute were to arise.
Note, however, that not all things called laws provide this predictability. Law is supposed to function as a guideline for how disputes are to be resolved. If there is no dispute, then there is no need for law. So, any law that defines behavior where there is no dispute (for example, requiring hair-dressers to get licensed before cutting hair) does not contribute to improving the predictability of a society.
4- The State and Order
The state is the traditional enforcer of law. The courts are made to be a place where law gets upheld, and the police are charged with responding to complaints (disputes) and preventing violence by encouraging the parties of a dispute to go to the courts to gain resolution. If a person has a dispute with you and is threatening to use violence to get his way, you can call on the police to prevent that from happening.
This sounds fine, and works OK for civil disputes. The problem arises when it is the state itself that is party to the dispute. If the state and I have a dispute, there is no way to resolve the dispute peacefully. Most likely the state will just decide that it is in the right, and forcibly enact it's decision.
Take, for example, eminent domain. If a private party tried to enact eminent domain, "Here's 2x your home's value in cash and now you have to leave" while holding a gun pointed toward you, that would be theft. If you called the police in this circumstance, they would take your side.
However, if the city decides that it needs to seize your home for a project, it can do so without your consent. E.g. when it's the one saying, "Here's 2x your home's value in cash now you have to leave" and holding a gun pointed at you, then there is nothing you can do. The police won't help you because they are the ones holding the gun. The state enforces it's policies through violence. Violence begets chaos.
Consider the USA. At any moment, congress or any one of the many, many regulatory agencies can create new rules that you have to live by. How can you predict what your life will be like in 20 years when the rules can change radically and without warning? One day you can freely cut anyone's hair who agrees to let you do it, the next, you must be licensed to do this. One day you are free to drink alcohol, the next you cannot, and the next you can again, but only if you're 21. One day you are free to assess your own risk of getting sick and purchase health insurance, the next you must purchase it whether you like it or not. One day you pay 20% of your income in taxes, the next 35%. One day you're going to college, the next you find yourself in an infantry training camp, soon to be shipped across the world to kill or be killed.
In the interest of order, there needs to be an agency to enforce law. However, this agency cannot be exempted from the law that it enforces. The state will always be able to be exempt from the law it enforces, because it is necessarily powerful enough that it's citizens cannot challenge it. Since it can do this, eventually, it will.
5- Anarchy and Order
There needs to be law to foster order. So, how can law be enforced without a state?
My response is fairly simple to explain, though the ultimate solution will likely be complex. There will be private, for-profit, competing companies that will do it.
But what would stop these companies from fighting against each other? What would stop one of them from taking over and becoming a new state?
My response to the first question has two parts. The first part is "mutual benefit" and "profits". War is expensive. How many people would sign up to be a security guard for your company if they might have to DIE? How much would you have to pay them to take that risk? How much does it cost to buy, say, a tank, just so that it can get destroyed while destroying an opposing tank? Since each of the companies would be for profit, none of them wants to go to war. It is much cheaper (and therefore more profitable) for them to work out their differences without violence.
The second part of the answer is competition. Since membership in the company is not mandatory, if you thought a certain law enforcement company was too violent or too power hungry, you could simply subscribe to one of their less violent competitors, thus taking the funding for the violent power-hungry company away. If most people in society didn't want power-hungry, violent companies running around, then competitive forces (as well as the fact that war is expensive) would tend to make non-violent companies succeed and violent ones fail. Additionally, who would sign up to die for a for-profit company's war?
To get a picture in mind about how this competitive force would operate, imagine that a law-enforcement agency salesman comes to your home to get you to subscribe to the agency that he represents. What safeguards would you shop for? Remember, that if you are not satisfied by whatever safeguards that the company has, you can subscribe to a different company that fulfills this desire of yours more accurately. As long as the majority of people don't want any one law enforcement agency to become a monopoly of force in an area, competitive forces will serve to prevent it from happening.
Additionally, having to worry whether one agency will grow too powerful and start oppressing people is a much better situation than what exists under a state, where there is already an agency that has claimed such power.
Order can be achieved in a stateless society as long as the majority of people want order and are willing to pay for it. Order can never be maintained with a state in control, because eventually a minority of people will always claim the power to, on a whim, enact and enforce arbitrary rules.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Why I am an Anarchist
It may come as a surprise to some of you, but I am an Anarchist.
Yeah, that's right. A straight up Anarchist. As in, anarchy, bombs, chaos, burning buildings, looting, riots, destroyed farms! The works. The state (i.e. the authoritarian organization that claims by fiat to own all land and people within a certain geographical region) is evil. It is lawless and immoral.
1- Anarchy
I shall begin by addressing the concept of anarchy itself. Anarchy has many terrible connotations associated with it, a few of which I stated above. Obviously, I am convinced that anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, burning buildings etc. On the contrary, I believe that striving for anarchy is the pathway to a better future.
So, what is anarchy if not burning and looting? It is simply the absence of a state that can impose its will on its citizens. To paraphrase Stephan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, "Most people think that anarchy means to be without rules, but that is not the case. They are missing one letter. Anarchy means to be without rulers." Anarchism is to believe that individuals are best equipped to know what is best for themselves, and that each should be able to make decisions on his own behalf. It is to believe that everyday people can get along with each other without having to resort to violence.
Authoritarianism, which is the polar opposite, is the belief that some people should be able to make decisions behalf of others. It is the belief that a minority of the people know what is best for everybody, and should be able force everyone to follow their chosen path.
Anarchy is not chaos. Rather it is simply the lack of overseeing, force using, blanket decision making rulers (e.g. The State). It is to empower individuals to do what they judge to be best, rather than to rely on the rulers to be benevolent. Not sounding too bad now is it? I will likely go into further detail on this subject in the future.
2- The State
The state in any particular region is an organization of people who claim the right to order everybody within that region around, and enforce these orders using a pile of guns, soldiers, and police that they employ. The US Government is an example of a state. The people who run the state claim the right to use force (i.e. violence) to get their way (i.e. enforce laws that they pass). Some examples:
The state can force you to risk your life in a war that you didn't want and that you don't agree with.
The state can steal from you in order to pay for things that you think are morally wrong.
The state can lock you away for 20 years for being addicted to the wrong kind of smoke.
The state can force you to ransom your future for cutting somebody's hair without the state's permission.
The state can deny you access to a life saving drug because they haven't approved it.
The state can force you to buy in to a retirement plan that has no hope of ever paying back out.
The state ... Shall I go on?
These laws are enforced using violence! You may say that you've never looked down the gun of a police officer, but that doesn't make the violence any less real. For example, say, you wanted to pay less taxes one year. Maybe you had an expensive medical emergency that year, maybe you don't agree with a war that is currently being waged, maybe it's something else. Regardless of the reason, you would almost certainly pay the full tax anyway. Why? Because if you didn't, you would owe even more. If you didn't pay the extra, you would be summoned to court. If you didn't show up to court, you would be confronted by a police officer. If you didn't go with him peacefully, you would be staring down the barrel of his gun. Eventually, it all comes down to the gun in that police officer's hand.
Saying that fines or taxes are not violent is like saying that paying "protection money" to the mafia is not violent. If you pay the protection money, you will never look down the barrel of the mobster's tommy gun, but that doesn't make the fact that he has a tommy gun irrelevant. That doesn't make the threat of violence any less real.
3- The Lawfulness of the State
Lawfulness is all about dispute resolution. If two people interact, say by striking up a business deal, and both people fulfill their end of the deal to the satisfaction of the other person, then there is no need for law. Law only matters if one or both of the people feels as though the other has not held up their end of the bargain, and, after discussing with each other the problem, they cannot come to agreement as to whether the bargain was upheld or not. In other words law only matters if there is a dispute.
Disputes can come in many forms. Such is above: a broken business agreement. Other disputes might include one person damaging another person's property, or polluting his air, or stealing from him, or beating him up, or harassing him, etc.
Being lawful is all about dispute resolution. In order to lawfully resolve disputes, both disputing parties must submit themselves to a non-biased third party arbitrator to resolve the dispute for them. They must also agree to be bound by the judgement of this third party. For example, if Bill and Jack could not agree as to where to draw a property line, they would submit their arguments as to where the line should be drawn to a third party arbitrator, and then both abide by wherever that arbitrator decided to draw the line. It would not be lawful if the arbitrator was Jack's brother, wife, or even Jack himself, as then the arbitrator is unlikely to be able to make an unbiased, fair judgement.
This is what it means to be lawful. It means to resolve disputes peacefully with the help of a non-biased third party, rather than to get resolution through violence. In the example above, it would not have been lawful for Jack to beat Bill up and then draw the line where he thought it should go.
The most well known form of dispute resolution is the state run court system. In civil disputes, such as a lawsuit, the two parties submit the dispute to the court to render judgement, and both abide by it. This is a lawful transaction between them.
However, when the state and a person get into a dispute, such as about whether a law should exist at all, these cases are NOT submitted to an unbiased third party. Rather, they are submitted to the state-run courts. This is not lawful, as it is analogous to Jack submitting his property dispute with Bob to his brother, or to his wife. Since the courts are part of the state, they are not unbiased.
You may say that the courts are a different branch of the state from the lawmakers, and this makes them unbiased. However, this would be like saying that the HR department of a company is a different branch from the sales department, and therefore would be unbiased when judging actions that the sales department has taken. While it is true that they are different branches with different responsibilities, they are all part of the same organization, and in most cases will do what is best for the organization rather than what is fair or lawful.
Because the state resolves disputes involving itself, it is not lawful.
4- The Morality of the State
The State uses a collection of guns, soldiers, and police to force its citizens to do things that the citizens don't want to do. If I point a gun at somebody and force him to do something he does not want to do, then I would be immoral. Why should it be moral for a government to do this?
You may say, "but I can vote!"
The fact that you can vote does not make pointing a gun at somebody moral! If there were 3 people in a room, would it be moral for two of them to vote to take the third person's wallet and then enforce the vote using a gun? Maybe if they voted to take and split just 20% of the money out of the his wallet? What if they just took $6 from his wallet, used it to buy 6 candy bars, and then gave 2 candy bars back to each person? Would that be moral?
No. Any amount of stealing is immoral. Even if it has the approval of the majority.
What if it wasn't about money, but about labor? Would it be moral for 2 of the 3 to vote for the third to be their slave? Maybe if he just had to work for them for 8 hours a day? Maybe just 1 hour? What if the one voted to be a slave for 1 hour didn't follow their orders during the allotted time? Would it be moral for them to shoot him or beat him or lock him away to enforce the vote?
No. Any amount of slavery is immoral. Even if it has the approval of the majority.
Would such a voting system be moral if there were 5 people in the room? 50? How about 150,000? No. Having the approval of more people does not make slavery or stealing or violence moral.
You may say, "but I would conform voluntarily to everything the state forces upon me, even if it wasn't enforced using violence!"
That is fine. I give you permission to do that. I just ask that you give the rest of us permission to not do that. It is not moral for you to force me to do something, even if you would voluntarily do that same thing.
Using a gun to force another peaceful person to do something they don't want to do is NEVER moral. It doesn't matter if 51/100 people voted for you to do it. It doesn't matter if 300 million people told you to do it. It doesn't matter if you think it is the best thing for that person to do. It is not moral. Yet, this is how the state operates. It points guns at peaceful people and forces them to do things. The state is not moral.
Conclusion
I cannot, in good conscience, support an unlawful and immoral organization, and therefore I cannot support the state. I have no choice but to be an anarchist.
Yeah, that's right. A straight up Anarchist. As in, anarchy, bombs, chaos, burning buildings, looting, riots, destroyed farms! The works. The state (i.e. the authoritarian organization that claims by fiat to own all land and people within a certain geographical region) is evil. It is lawless and immoral.
1- Anarchy
I shall begin by addressing the concept of anarchy itself. Anarchy has many terrible connotations associated with it, a few of which I stated above. Obviously, I am convinced that anarchy is not synonymous with chaos, burning buildings etc. On the contrary, I believe that striving for anarchy is the pathway to a better future.
So, what is anarchy if not burning and looting? It is simply the absence of a state that can impose its will on its citizens. To paraphrase Stephan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, "Most people think that anarchy means to be without rules, but that is not the case. They are missing one letter. Anarchy means to be without rulers." Anarchism is to believe that individuals are best equipped to know what is best for themselves, and that each should be able to make decisions on his own behalf. It is to believe that everyday people can get along with each other without having to resort to violence.
Authoritarianism, which is the polar opposite, is the belief that some people should be able to make decisions behalf of others. It is the belief that a minority of the people know what is best for everybody, and should be able force everyone to follow their chosen path.
Anarchy is not chaos. Rather it is simply the lack of overseeing, force using, blanket decision making rulers (e.g. The State). It is to empower individuals to do what they judge to be best, rather than to rely on the rulers to be benevolent. Not sounding too bad now is it? I will likely go into further detail on this subject in the future.
2- The State
The state in any particular region is an organization of people who claim the right to order everybody within that region around, and enforce these orders using a pile of guns, soldiers, and police that they employ. The US Government is an example of a state. The people who run the state claim the right to use force (i.e. violence) to get their way (i.e. enforce laws that they pass). Some examples:
The state can force you to risk your life in a war that you didn't want and that you don't agree with.
The state can steal from you in order to pay for things that you think are morally wrong.
The state can lock you away for 20 years for being addicted to the wrong kind of smoke.
The state can force you to ransom your future for cutting somebody's hair without the state's permission.
The state can deny you access to a life saving drug because they haven't approved it.
The state can force you to buy in to a retirement plan that has no hope of ever paying back out.
The state ... Shall I go on?
These laws are enforced using violence! You may say that you've never looked down the gun of a police officer, but that doesn't make the violence any less real. For example, say, you wanted to pay less taxes one year. Maybe you had an expensive medical emergency that year, maybe you don't agree with a war that is currently being waged, maybe it's something else. Regardless of the reason, you would almost certainly pay the full tax anyway. Why? Because if you didn't, you would owe even more. If you didn't pay the extra, you would be summoned to court. If you didn't show up to court, you would be confronted by a police officer. If you didn't go with him peacefully, you would be staring down the barrel of his gun. Eventually, it all comes down to the gun in that police officer's hand.
Saying that fines or taxes are not violent is like saying that paying "protection money" to the mafia is not violent. If you pay the protection money, you will never look down the barrel of the mobster's tommy gun, but that doesn't make the fact that he has a tommy gun irrelevant. That doesn't make the threat of violence any less real.
3- The Lawfulness of the State
Lawfulness is all about dispute resolution. If two people interact, say by striking up a business deal, and both people fulfill their end of the deal to the satisfaction of the other person, then there is no need for law. Law only matters if one or both of the people feels as though the other has not held up their end of the bargain, and, after discussing with each other the problem, they cannot come to agreement as to whether the bargain was upheld or not. In other words law only matters if there is a dispute.
Disputes can come in many forms. Such is above: a broken business agreement. Other disputes might include one person damaging another person's property, or polluting his air, or stealing from him, or beating him up, or harassing him, etc.
Being lawful is all about dispute resolution. In order to lawfully resolve disputes, both disputing parties must submit themselves to a non-biased third party arbitrator to resolve the dispute for them. They must also agree to be bound by the judgement of this third party. For example, if Bill and Jack could not agree as to where to draw a property line, they would submit their arguments as to where the line should be drawn to a third party arbitrator, and then both abide by wherever that arbitrator decided to draw the line. It would not be lawful if the arbitrator was Jack's brother, wife, or even Jack himself, as then the arbitrator is unlikely to be able to make an unbiased, fair judgement.
This is what it means to be lawful. It means to resolve disputes peacefully with the help of a non-biased third party, rather than to get resolution through violence. In the example above, it would not have been lawful for Jack to beat Bill up and then draw the line where he thought it should go.
The most well known form of dispute resolution is the state run court system. In civil disputes, such as a lawsuit, the two parties submit the dispute to the court to render judgement, and both abide by it. This is a lawful transaction between them.
However, when the state and a person get into a dispute, such as about whether a law should exist at all, these cases are NOT submitted to an unbiased third party. Rather, they are submitted to the state-run courts. This is not lawful, as it is analogous to Jack submitting his property dispute with Bob to his brother, or to his wife. Since the courts are part of the state, they are not unbiased.
You may say that the courts are a different branch of the state from the lawmakers, and this makes them unbiased. However, this would be like saying that the HR department of a company is a different branch from the sales department, and therefore would be unbiased when judging actions that the sales department has taken. While it is true that they are different branches with different responsibilities, they are all part of the same organization, and in most cases will do what is best for the organization rather than what is fair or lawful.
Because the state resolves disputes involving itself, it is not lawful.
4- The Morality of the State
The State uses a collection of guns, soldiers, and police to force its citizens to do things that the citizens don't want to do. If I point a gun at somebody and force him to do something he does not want to do, then I would be immoral. Why should it be moral for a government to do this?
You may say, "but I can vote!"
The fact that you can vote does not make pointing a gun at somebody moral! If there were 3 people in a room, would it be moral for two of them to vote to take the third person's wallet and then enforce the vote using a gun? Maybe if they voted to take and split just 20% of the money out of the his wallet? What if they just took $6 from his wallet, used it to buy 6 candy bars, and then gave 2 candy bars back to each person? Would that be moral?
No. Any amount of stealing is immoral. Even if it has the approval of the majority.
What if it wasn't about money, but about labor? Would it be moral for 2 of the 3 to vote for the third to be their slave? Maybe if he just had to work for them for 8 hours a day? Maybe just 1 hour? What if the one voted to be a slave for 1 hour didn't follow their orders during the allotted time? Would it be moral for them to shoot him or beat him or lock him away to enforce the vote?
No. Any amount of slavery is immoral. Even if it has the approval of the majority.
Would such a voting system be moral if there were 5 people in the room? 50? How about 150,000? No. Having the approval of more people does not make slavery or stealing or violence moral.
You may say, "but I would conform voluntarily to everything the state forces upon me, even if it wasn't enforced using violence!"
That is fine. I give you permission to do that. I just ask that you give the rest of us permission to not do that. It is not moral for you to force me to do something, even if you would voluntarily do that same thing.
Using a gun to force another peaceful person to do something they don't want to do is NEVER moral. It doesn't matter if 51/100 people voted for you to do it. It doesn't matter if 300 million people told you to do it. It doesn't matter if you think it is the best thing for that person to do. It is not moral. Yet, this is how the state operates. It points guns at peaceful people and forces them to do things. The state is not moral.
Conclusion
I cannot, in good conscience, support an unlawful and immoral organization, and therefore I cannot support the state. I have no choice but to be an anarchist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)