(to
table of contents of FNF archives) (to
start of essay)
Among other things, this paper explains why I am not in favor of anarchy.
Outline
Introduction to Limited Government
Anarchy Equals Subjectivism
Subordination of Might to Right
Why I Am Against Anarchism
Notes
Introduction to Limited Government
Most libertarians have at least some familiarity with the novels and ideas of Ayn Rand. Rand was, of course, an advocate of strictly limited constitutional government, and her own philosophy upholds the concept of objective law. Human beings exist in an objective reality, and must therefore be left free to function on the judgments of their own minds. And as one can infer from Rand, force and mind are opposites. Therefore, we who are libertarians agree that the initiation of physical force is morally wrong, and that it must be banned in all social relationships. The question then becomes, "How?"
If one believes that it is evil to rule people by means of physical force, then it would follow that anarchy is the only defensible political system. But under anarchy, everything would be completely subjective. There would be no way to objectively validate rights, objectively demarcate property, objectively define anything. Thus, libertarians should support the kind of political system where everything is completely objective. And it is through her philosophy that Miss Rand shows us something: the only way to achieve such a system is through strictly limited constitutional government.
Anarchy Equals Subjectivism
Like Nietzsche, anarchy is also subjectivist. Whatever has been said about anarchy in theory, there are two things that anarchy would certainly mean in practice: to have no government, and to let anybody "do his thing."1 This logically leads us to the conclusion that under anarchism, private individuals, groups, gangs, etc. can subjectively do whatever they feel like doing, with people like Jeffrey Dahmer and Adolf Hitler not excluded. Anarchy invariably leads to chaos, destruction, and killing.
If any reader doubts what I have just said about anarchy, imagine if the United States provided no organized governmental protection against individuals like Jeffrey Dahmer or Adolf Hitler. Every single person living in America would have to either carry a gun at all times, or else join a private militia composed of such people. In other words, America would look rather like the Wild West. But my point is perhaps broader than having no police or no armies; problems are inherent in any variety of anarchy.
One particular variant of anarchistic theory I have heard numerous times before is a weird absurdity known as "competing governments." But remember that the use of force is the only service a government actually has to offer. Libertarians should ask themselves what a competition in the use of force would necessarily have to mean.
Suppose Smith, a customer of Government A who is protected by Police A, suspects that his neighbor Jones, a customer of Government B who is protected by Police B, has robbed him. A squad of Police A proceed to Jones' house, where they are met on Jones' driveway by a squad of Police B. The squad of Police B loudly declare that they do not recognize the authority of Government A.2
What occurs next? Intelligent libertarian readers should take it from there. But again, please keep in mind that anarchism is inherently subjectivist. While, like Rand, limited government is purely objectivist. Anarchism, a doctrine that is based upon subjectivity, is not compatible with the principle of objectivity that underlies individual liberty and individual rights. Those who protest that anarchy doesn't mean chaos are simply blind to the nature of anarchy. The ethics of amoralism and the epistemology of subjectivism simply cannot lead to a political system of absolute individual rights.3
Subordination of Might to Right
The protection of absolute individual rights is the only justifiable function of any government. However, this is also the reason why people require a government of some type. Government is the only agent by which people may (objectively) restrain or combat the initiation of force (subjectively) by others, and therefore, government has to hold a monopoly on the validation of rights, as well as the use of force.
For that very same reason, such a government's actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited, and circumscribed, and no touch of whim or caprice can be allowed in any government's performance. Rather, a country's government should be like an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power.4 Under a proper social system, a private individual enjoys absolute freedom within the sphere of his or her own selfishly possessed rights, while a government official is bound by law in every official act. Private individuals may do anything save that which is legally forbidden; government officials may do nothing save that which is legally permitted.
Strictly limited constitutional government is the means of subordinating might to right, the originally American concept of "a government of laws and not of men."5
Contrast this with the anarchist approach to legality, where the use of force is not defined, delimited, or circumscribed. Private courts could freely dispense with such niceties as procedure or rules of evidence, while private mobs could freely lynch or murder any person they feel is threatening them. Violent criminals could also roam the streets freely under anarchy, since [as the anarchists argue] no government may monopolize the use of force and declare such actions illegal.
Picture a punk-rock militia, comprised of Red Communists wearing Fugazi shirts, with loaded submachine guns at the ready. As they walk down Wall Street singing the Internationale, they are stopped by the New York City police. The young Comrade leading the punk militia says to the police sergeant, "Me and the proletarians are only here to complete the class struggle and restore power to the people, so you have no right to interfere with us." According to the anarchists, it is the police who would be morally bound to withdraw from such a confrontation, because the police are monopolizing the use of force, and because the Commie punks should have the freedom to do whatever they feel like.6
Can anything more clearly demonstrate the anarchists' opposition to liberty?
Why I Am Against Anarchism
Unlike other libertarians, I do not consider anarchists to be friends of liberty. This is especially true of those who support anarchism from a Christian or other irrationalist perspective, for in addition to being a Randian, I am also an atheist.
If one attempts to build a system under which individual rights are objectively defined, validated, demarcated, and protected, one discovers laissez-faire capitalism and limited government. But if one attempts to concoct a system whereby anybody can just subjectively "do his own thing", one unearths nihilism and anarchism. The concept of anarchy is a naive floating abstraction that cannot even be tried in practice.
Notes
1 Ayn Rand, during an interview with Jerry Schwartz about
America's Future (New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, 1996).
2 Harry Binswanger on the absurdity of "competing governments."
The Ayn Rand Lexicon (New York: Penguin Books, 1988), pp. 21-22.
3 Peter Schwartz in Libertarianism: The Perversion of
Liberty (New York: The Intellectual Activist, 1986). Although he is essentially
hostile to Libertarians, Peter Schwartz is also against the creed of anarchism,
for exactly the same reasons I am.
4 Following Ayn Rand's arguments in The Virtue of Selfishness
(New York: Penguin Books, 1964), page 128.
5 Ibid.
6 Harry Binswanger in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 22. Though
the concretes I present are slightly different, his abstraction is the
same.
7 Ayn Rand, as quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, page 253.
Adrian C. Hinton is a twenty-one-year-old individualist from Cincinnati, Ohio. Three major influences upon his social and political thought are the writings of Ayn Rand, Robert Heinlein, and J. Neil Schulman. When not working his way out of debt slavery, he enjoys biking, watching Japanese animation, and thinking about libertarianism. Not presently active with the Party, he hopes to have it all figured out by 1999...
(to
table of contents of FNF archives) (to
outline) (to top of page)