Posted on 01/14/2002 6:38:35 AM PST by SteamshipTime
Anarchy, I must point out, is not synonymous, at least in my mind, with bomb-throwing lunatics, or rioting in the streets. It is as placid as a pond, as peaceful as a park. There is nothing chaotic about it. It is certainly not the absence of government, but only of government imposed by strangers. The anarchist governs himself, based upon principles found to be enduring and valuable: the Ten Commandments, for example. Anarchy has been the basis of society, long prior to the existence of government. Does your family have bylaws? Are there regular elections, or meetings for the sake of writing new laws to cope with new problems? Do family members regularly charge one another with violations of the law, and demand justice, as meted out by strangers? Not in my family. Family members may disagree, of course, but these disagreements are worked out and eventually settled without recourse to written statutes or judges. No lawyers are necessary. God’s law, we have been taught, is written on our hearts. We don’t need to quibble about the precise meaning of words in laws because we all know, instinctively, what is right and fair, and what isn’t. It is only when we leave the family that we encounter the world of legalisms. As a physician, I am on the staff of several hospitals. All have staff bylaws. These are bulky multi-page documents, intended to deal with any and every circumstance surrounding a physician’s staff privileges. Before being accepted on the staff, you must sign the bylaws and agree to abide by them. Indeed, one hospital even affixes to its signature-line the jurat that the signer will be bound not only by these bylaws, but by any additions that may be made in the future. Astonishingly, this absurdity seems to provoke little reaction from the doctors. Perhaps that is because they realize that the bylaws don’t mean anything anyway, but exist mainly to provide the hospital with justification for acting against a particular physician if his actions might be considered dangerous to the hospital. Strangers from hospital-accreditation, who, ultimately, control the purse strings, require them. The laws of your local community, not to mention state and federal governments, are sufficiently numerous and complex that you cannot possibly know them, although ignorance of the law – an excellent excuse for any alleged lawbreaker—is considered no excuse by the lawmakers, who may profit from infractions. You manage your day to day activities quite nicely without reference to these countless regulations. Indeed, were you to consider them prior to acting, you would be reduced to inactivity; they would overwhelm you. In fact, the innumerable laws which are said to apply to all of us are out of our thoughts. That undeniable fact is, in itself, an excellent argument for anarchy. We have government, with its innumerable laws, but we function as though we didn’t, because otherwise we’d spend more time pouring over the statute-books, and haggling over definitions, than doing our work. Moreover, the government itself, though passing new laws with alacrity, pays little attention to them, at least where its self-interest is concerned. It does what it thinks it must do, and if its actions are prohibited by the laws, it ignores them. The proof of this is all around us. To wit: "No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender for debt." That constitutional provision would virtually eradicate our economic problems; the government not only ignores it, but violates it. Actions not specifically permitted to government by the constitution are denied it. Nearly all of the government’s actions are, by this constitutional standard, unconstitutional. Does anyone in Washington care? Do most Americans? The written laws are tools to be used, when it is considered desirable to do so, against individuals and corporations, except the federal corporation, which ignores any laws it finds oppressive. What keeps society together are not the myriad laws imposed by government, to be applied as needed; it is the law written on our hearts. The shootings at schools around the country have undoubtedly stimulated a new outpouring of laws, but there are already numerous laws prohibiting shootings at schools, or anywhere else. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the relevant law, and it’s already written, though not taught. Indeed, it is forbidden to be taught in many schools. Therein lies the problem! There is freedom in the law, we are told, but that is only true if it is God’s law, not that of some strangers who call themselves government. Those laws bring slavery. Indeed, that may be their purpose.
I believe it was Chesterton who remarked that Christianity had not failed; it had not been tried. And Ayn Rand described capitalism as the unknown ideal. I would like to suggest, in a similar vein, that anarchy has been tried, is being tried and is a universal success, but remains an unknown ideal. I’ll explain.
You mention that a grocer won't know if I'm paying for my bill with mugging money. You are right. Of course, that's exactly how it stands today. So let's concentrate on what happens if you get caught mugging.
In the current situation, a government decides to put you in prison. The government will take about a year to do so. Result: the person you mugged is still out his money, you get lessons in how to be a better mugger, and the tax payer is charged the bill for all this. Hardly what I would call justice.
In a system of private justice, the person you mugged would sue you for damages and find a judge to rule on the case. You would have a choice: either mutually agree on a choice of judge and accept the verdict or... It would become known that you refuse to play by the rules.
At which point, you're back to looking for a place to live.
The diamond-cutting industry was once dominated by orthodox Jews who were forbidden by their religion to sue each other. So if they had a dispute, they would take it to an arbitrator to resolve. To someone who was known to be fair. There weren't any problems. It is human nature to accept recognize what is "fair" and to accept the verdict.
This is also how the English Common Law evolved. Peasants would hire judges at county fairs and festivals to resolve their disputes. The good ones got hired again by other disputants and their judgements became the basis for later decisions by other judges.
It is estimated that in the last century 170 million citizens were murdered by their own governments. ("Death by government", Rummel) Taking the century's world average population at 3 billion, which is high, that gives an estimated average annual governmental murder rate of almost 60 per 100,000. The annual(non-governmental) murder rate in the U.S. hovered around 10 per 100,000 during the century.
WRT all the land (and other property) the government owns, I think Harry Browne has the right idea. Sell it off and use the proceeds to pay off all the stakeholders in the government scam. Annuities for retirees. Severance pay for bureaucrats. Etc.
When government imposes its will on society, this has the effect, not of imposing order on disorder, but rather of freezing motion. In other words, it does not impose order. It imposes stasis.
You talk of government as if it were a foreign entity imposed on society. That may be true when one nation conquers another; otherwise, every government grows out of a particular community or nation. One could say that government, like the economy, is a "self-ordering mechanism."
Just as some trees grow in the mountains and not in the desert, some forms of government have florished in some societies and not in others. Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today? What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?
Most people would prefer to have both.
Guess what? The Supreme Court talked that way too, respecting Volume 20; Corpus Juris Sec. 1785 (NY re: Merriam 36 NE, 505 141): THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH RESPECT TO A STATE. There are others that say basically the same thing. But then the States incorporated, the counties incorporated, the cities incorporated and now you compete with all of these corporate entities in business.
There are governments and there are governments. Surely you do not mean to imply that there is little difference between the U.S. government and that of, say, North Korea.
What was the "governmental murder rate" in the United States during the last century, and how does that compare with the "non-governmental" rate?
Well, someone was doing the conquering. The first governments must have arisen spontaneously somewhere in the world.
I agree that selling off the land the government holds is a good plan, but if government scam can be proven to be the fraud it appears to be, the people who (knowingly) participated and profited from that fraud shouldn't be awarded with severence etc., they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, just like anyone else would be.
We cannot enjoy both security and liberty? No wonder anarchists have had such a hard time selling their ideas to their fellow Americans.
I believe that Franklin would have disagreed with you. He worked to form a nation that is both as secure as possible and free as possible.
Don't bet your wad on that.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
That is precisely what it is. A government may, as you say, be organic and grow out of its community (or more accurately, out of previous governments). But that does not change its purpose - which is to control and manipulate the development of that community. It imposes a system of law and order instead of letting the market choose the mechanisms for self-defense and conflict resolution which work best.
Have you considered why there are no anarchistic societies anywhere today?
Historically, they have been conquered by states. Once installed, the state has been extremely difficult to weed out.
What sort of society would be required for anarchy to form and florish spontaneously?
Well, the first step is obviously for people to recognize that such a thing is thinkable.
I would say that a second would be a recognition of the right to individual secession. A friend of mine has this dream of buying an island in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and making her own country. Why the hell shouldn't she have the right to do precisely that?
Yes, I know the quote. (Franklin is one of my heroes.) But Franklin did not say the choice was either liberty or security. Note the qualifiers: essential liberty; temporary safety. Franklin was promoting neither anarchy nor cowardice.
I have a friend who wants to capture an island, declare himself an unfriendly nation and apply for foreign aid, LOL.
Quite true. In his works, Marvin Harris shows quite brilliantly the evolutionary processes which lead to the subjunction of people, as control became more and more tight and adherence to the ruler became less and less voluntary.
It's fairly clear that the first real states arose in response to the requirement for complex hydrological works to support agriculture. Dams, irrigation canals, etc. All the primary states arose in river valleys and lake districts. Once someone seizes control of the waterworks, he's got you by the proverbial throat. You have to let him be king or you die.
While I might agree with you in theory, I would be more than satisfied to be finally left free. I don't care what price you want. Slave for five years? Sold. It's better than being a half-slave for the rest of my life.
That's an element, but you can't discount organized gangs of bandits who ran the early protection rackets on the first farmers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.