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.