• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Anarchy Is Neither Chaos nor Hard to Find

PAF

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
12,032

Mises Wire
Andreas Granath
05/09/2024


Anarchy-W.jpg



In mundane speech and in perhaps any dictionary, anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder. This may not come as a surprise since left-wing anarchists have worked hard on destroying anarchy’s reputation.

As a former statist, I used to share this view of anarchy—a chaotic dystopia. But, as I’ve learned over the years, anarchy is the opposite of that. However, this can only be realized by looking at it logically.


Defining Anarchy

The word anarchy stems from ancient Greek and means “without ruler or authority.” In defining anarchy it is crucial to define the role of a ruler. Left-wing anarchists oppose natural hierarchies, private property, and government. By their logic, a ruler is someone who owns private property, holds a managerial position, or is a government official.

On the other hand, someone who forces another to share his means of production would not be considered a ruler. Hence, this view of anarchy is incoherent and contradictory. That being said, we need to examine a more coherent political philosophy: anarchocapitalism, a right-wing anarchist political philosophy.

Such right-wing anarchists define a ruler in the libertarian way—as someone who uses violence or the threat of it to control others. This is deduced from the libertarian axiom of self-ownership as a natural right. This right must on logical grounds be extended to include owning property.

Now that we have a logical and coherent view of a ruler, we can define anarchy. It is a social relationship between people based on the absence of coercion through violence or the threat of it. Strictly speaking, anarchy is voluntary social cooperation between self-owned individuals and their privately owned belongings.


Finding Anarchy

The typical statist will almost always ask an anarchist to point to a specific time and place where anarchy has worked out. To this, the typical (right-wing) anarchist will most often point to the Icelandic Commonwealth or Cospaia. While these are great examples of larger well-functioning societies, there are many other examples I will show you.

Anarchy, which is an interpersonal relationship between individuals without violence or the threat of it, can be found everywhere. By looking at it in a microperspective, we find that anarchic relations are more common than nonanarchic relations.

Most people are in anarchic relationships with each other. They exchange goods, services, ideas, information, love, and many other valuable things on a daily basis. In other words, value is traded for value voluntarily.

On this value-trading principle, we build families, societies, businesses, and other groups. However, while there is anarchy within smaller societies, there is still a nonanarchic relationship to the state. Most people cannot see this because there cannot be an interpersonal relationship with an individual and an absent collective. This is because only individuals act and interact.

Thus, the state hides and camouflages itself through its employees with their different professions. Consider someone who decides not to pay his taxes. Although he knows of the consequences he will suffer from the state, there are many interpersonal relationships to study in this matter.

At first he might receive a notice from someone at the Internal Revenue Service. After having ignored several warnings, armed policemen will show up at his house. While in custody and awaiting trial, he will be guarded by some prison guards. Eventually he will get his trial, and when in court he is antagonized by judges and prosecutors.

Bear in mind that these people who are directly involved represent just the tip of the iceberg. Below the sea level, we have politicians who enact laws, taxpayers, and voters who feed the state along with the lobbyists.

When we break down the “relationship between the state and individuals” into interpersonal relationships, the picture becomes clearer. The state functions like a band of robbers but in a very sophisticated and sneaky way.

Furthermore, we should consider that public servants are also in an anarchic relationship with each other. Meanwhile, they—just like private citizens—are in a nonanarchic relationship with the state. There is also, as pointed out by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, anarchy between states. At least until a war breaks out.

In conclusion, anarchy means without ruler. In a microperspective, it is a social relationship between two individuals without violence or the threat of it. This microanarchy can be and is extended to involve larger groups of people. Thus, there is no limit of how big society can get before anarchy becomes inefficient and government must take control.

Finally, anarchy is spontaneous order, not chaos. This spontaneous order can be found everywhere, and being an anarchist is not so controversial as people think.



https://mises.org/mises-wire/anarchy-neither-chaos-nor-hard-find
 
The Icelandic tribal government was not anarchy, it was tribal.
And it ended in bloody chaos so bad they begged the King of Norway to rule over them to put an end to it.
 
Not until it tries to kill somebody.

Anarchists like to fantasize about what the world would look like without aggression. The truth is, it would look astonishingly similar to what we have today. We'd have much more countries, and we'd all be more prosperous, but it would fundamentally look extremely similar to what we have today. There would probably still be a Federal Reserve, there would still be police, there would still be of course highways and roads, there would still be (omgosh!) taxes, there would still be the IRS, there would still be militaries, and you would still have to wait in line for an hour at your local DMV to get a license to drive your car.

Whatever you choose to call that (government or otherwise), it would exist regardless of the existence of aggression/coercion/murder.
 
The tourist attractions of Auschwitz, Poland (if any) would certainly look different.
 
Anarchy is the same as democracy: mob-rule. The problem with anarchy is that it fails to take into account human nature and the fact that there are predatorial humans who will prey on other humans. Government really only has 2 jobs: providing justice and upholding contracts / securing individual rights. Granted it doesn't do that very well.
 
someone said:
The problem with anarchy is [...]

someone else said:
The problem with someone's problem with anarchy is [...]

The problem with anarchy (whatever that is) is that those who have problems with whatever they think anarchy is use definitions of anarchy (whatever that is) that are different from the definitions of anarchy (whatever that is) used by those who don't have problems with whatever they think anarchy is.

That's why my own political philosophy is best and most precisely denoted as "post-anarcho-warlordism". And don't even bother asking me what post-anarcho-warlordism is, because if I told you, you'd probably just say it's "really" something else (even though you didn't even know what it was a moment ago, and had to ask), so that you could then tell me how stupid and wrong I am, and now you can't do that ha-ha (at least, not that way), so there!
 
Last edited:
That's why my own political philosophy is best and most precisely denoted as "post-anarcho-warlordism". And don't even bother asking me what post-anarcho-warlordism is, because if I told you, you'd probably just say it's "really" something else (even though you didn't even know what it was a moment ago, and had to ask), so that you could then tell me how stupid and wrong I am, and now you can't do that ha-ha (at least, not that way), so there!


Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life :upsidedown:

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share :) :handpeace:
 
Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life :upsidedown:

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share :) :handpeace:

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is.
 
Rule? I'm shocked that you didn't say principle!

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: always tell everyone that the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club is "never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is".
 
First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: always tell everyone that the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club is "never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is".

The introvert that I am, it is my extroverted tendencies that has landed me in philosophical trouble here on the forums, and out and about. Though I am a devout member of the Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club, I can't seem to abide by that first rule. It's also something that I can't seem to work on :astonished:
 
Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life :upsidedown:

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share :) :handpeace:

I'll help you out and give you a hint. What he refers to as "post-anarcho-warlordism" is really something else.
 
I'll help you out and give you a hint. What he refers to as "post-anarcho-warlordism" is really something else.

I just wanted to see if I could get him to spill the beans, but, he caught on lol.
 
Whatever you choose to call that (government or otherwise), it would exist regardless of the existence of aggression/coercion/murder.

I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)
 
I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)

The reason why I think government would exist absent aggression, is that people seem to generally like things the way they are. They may tinker around the edges, but ultimately, most people wouldn't choose to secede from this system if they were even given the opportunity to. In other words most people are participating in this system voluntarily.

Only a few people (us, basically), are being held to this social contract against our will.
 
I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)

And now you've finally added being anti-2A to your list.
 
Back
Top