If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself. If no other person or their properties are harmed or defrauded in that self governance, then logically all external compulsory government is tyranny. --- Me (an expansion and extrapolation of Benjamin Tucker's smaller and less exact quote on the same subject)
I find the above statement impossible (as of yet) to refute in argumentation ethics. It's the clearest way to sum up anarchism, my personal code of ethics and philosophy.
From this we derive the idea that
tax is just
extortion on the threat of
kidnapping (
prison).
Voluntary donations are not tax, anymore than voluntary government beyond the individual is tyranny.
Statism is the belief a particular land area should have a monopoly on social contract and law, organized according to a compulsory collective form of government called the "state". This clearly encompasses Constitutionalism, if that Constitution is not wholly voluntary and does not claim land area as it's demesne.
In philosophy, we must first define our terms before arguing from first principles.
From several sources:
Statism (French; étatisme) is a term used by political scientists to describe the belief that, for whatever reason, a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[4][1][2][3] Statism can take many forms. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night watchman state to protect people from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police, and courts.[5][6][7][8] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[5][6][7][8] Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all encompassing state.[9][10][11][12][13]Limited government, welfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism.[14][15] --- Wikipedia
I find the above definition incomplete, as it fails to mention the geographic monopolistic aspect so necessary to a state.
The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.[1] The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization.
The concept and actuality of the nation state can be compared and contrasted with that of the city state,[2][3][4] empire, confederation, and other state forms with which it may overlap. The key distinction from the other forms is the identification of a people with a polity. --- Wikipedia
I find the above definition of a nation state to be the best in terms of defining statism, per se. As such, it may be necessary to concede that
nationalist statism is actually what we mean when as anarchists or Voluntaryists we use the term "statist".
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation.
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused.[12][13][14][15] Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist."[16][17][18] --- Wikipedia
This concept of nationalism becoming a pseudo-religion is important. It's required to make it's symbols mean anything, beyond simple symbology. It's a form of psychological collectivism taken to it's furthest extreme, where the state is defended with as much fervor as one's religion (and often the two are intertwined concepts). This is why anarchists dislike nationalism (but not patriotism) and find national symbols wholly mentally incapacitating. You'll often find anarchists opposed to such symbols on principle (I am).
For instance, we will ask that our children opt out of the national anthem in schools (as it has nothing to do with education), in hopes they avoid nationalist brainwashing that comes with a day-in and day-out recitation of the pledge for 12-13 years of schooling by the state's curriculum (whether in private or public school). It wasn't until the Supreme Court overruled it that this was legal (to opt-out of the pledge). Until the mid-part of the 20th Century parents could be jailed if their child refused to say the pledge. This case was brought by Jehovah's Witnesses who's religious freedoms were imposed on by the pledge (they can't swear allegiences to governments; either can the Amish). When previously anarchists had philosophically opposed the pledge, they were thrown out of court.
It seems religion overrules ethics in the statist law. I'd argue, as the Judge does in the video, that ethics should always overrule the law of the state. If natural law is not adhered to, then the state's law is criminal.
So, perhaps refering to "statists" of the small government persuasion as such is in fact incorrect. They are nationalist statists. They defend a nation state, not simply a mega-state dynasty, empire, or to other end of the spectrum, simple states without regard to geographic area. Nation states (what we call colloquially "states") didn't occur until about the 5th-4th Century BC in Greece and China, and until the 9th Century AD in Europe. This is because an empire or dynsasty is NOT a nation state...it's a mega-state, also known simply as a state. Nation states are most often the result of a collaped dynasty or empire, that is decentralized enough to be considered wholly national in population and culture (often race and langauage, but not necessarily). The USA was an exception (and there are a few others), where a piece of an existing empire or dynasty seceded before it's collapse, or where a nation state developed decentralized without ever being part of an original empire or dynsasty to begin with.
So, more accurately, we as anarchists and Voluntaryists should call people in favor of small government statism
nationalist statists.
At the risk of offending anyone, I'd assert that nationalism and statism are both mental disorders (like addiction), and when combined make for a deadly cocktail in which sociopaths can easily rise to the top of the social hierarchical structure and sadistically destroy a society via the state. At one time religious constructs controlled the states (empires and dynasties)...but once the religious decentralization and de-institutionalism took place (the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason), they were replaced by the nation states as the most powerful human institution (and the most tyrannical).
Someday, hopefully, nation states will be decentralized and de-institutionalized so far that business (not coporations per se, as corporate personhood is a manifestation of the state purely) will become the dominate human institution (and source of most of it's tyranny, albeit a measure less than than states, like states were a measure less than dynasties and empires). From there, it's anyone's guess what will replace businesses as the next most dominate institution...my guess is the internet.
statism : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry --- Merriam-Webster dictionary
stat·ism
[stey-tiz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2.
support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.
--- dictionary.com
As you can see, the above definition takes on the colloquial meaning of republics...which I've already established are actually nation states, not simply "states". This is why using definitions from dictionaries is simply lazy if it's what you base your arguments on. They are usually just colloquialisms, not actual historical meanings.
We'll now define it as one famous nationalist statist defined it:
The political expression of altruism is collectivism or statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. --- Ayn Rand
Yes, Ayn, despite the above definition, did argue in favor of a minimalist state with monopoly powers over policing and defense.
One more thing I'd point out...what many think is anarchy is actually anomie.
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] --- Wikipedia
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[1][2] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations.[11][12] --- Wikipedia
I'd like to note this is incorrect in one sense; anarchists oppose compulsory hierarchy, not hierarchy more generally. Afterall, sex is hierarchical, boxing is hierarchical, being taught something is hierarchical, and an expert instructing you in your work is hierarchical. Sex is not equivalent to rape, boxing is not assault, teaching is not brainwashing, and expert instruction in work is not slavery. It's dreadfully incomplete to suggest anarchism opposes hierarchy (although this is a nonsense argument left anarchists make when they say the meme "anarcho capitalism is not a form of anarchy...it included hierarchy"...as if thier forms like anarcho syndicalism does not. Anyone who wants to see voluntary syndicalism can look up Mondragon Corporation...you'll find anarcho syndicalists aren't for egalitarianism either, and aren't against hierarchy. They oppose profit not markets, and capitalism not hierarchy in work. They, like most leftist anarchists, contradict themselves constantly. (Present company excepted...I'm aware there are left market anarchists that understand these concepts).
Anomie describes a lack of social norms; "normlessness".[1] It describes the breakdown of social bonds between an individual and their community ties, with fragmentation of social identity and rejection of self-regulatory values.[2] It was popularized by French sociologist Émile Durkheim in his influential book Suicide (1897). Durkheim borrowed the word from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau. Durkheim never uses the term normlessness; rather, he describes anomie as "a rule that is a lack of rule," "derangement," and "an insatiable will."[3] -- Wikipedia
Now, having read Durkheim, I can tell you he thought anomie arose in two forms and instances; when there was too little regulation, and too much regulation. When there were no rules (not even natural law which anarchists favor (or it's rhetorical opposite but in practice equivalent; utilitarianism)) it was called anomie, and led to complete disorder, lawlessness, violence, and chaos. When there were too many rules he called this anomie "fatalism", because it led the individual to not value their own life or anyone elses out of desperation felt when no individual choice could be had. In essence, fatalism occurs when people feel they are treated like robots, and they have no free choice. This leads to high suicide rates, murder rates, theft rates, and finally lawllessness, disorder, chaos, and rampant violence of all types. Both forms and causes of anomie have the same result.
So, as you can see, when people (usually statists of any type, but especially nationalist statists) use the word "anarchy" derogatorily, they really mean
anomie. I'ts the colloquial meaning of "anarchy" that's been distorted and confused with Durkheim's term
anomie. In essence, it shows a fundamental ignorance of philosophy, ethics, and sociology (and somewhat economics, as Durkheim was speaking of Division of Labor when he talked about differing levels of regulation; similar to Marx's concept of "alienation").
I'd also note that Voluntaryism is not anarchism exactly...in fact one of it's earliest known proponents thought of the state as necessary. I believe this was a gentleman who closed his debate with Benjamin Tucker with a line similar to "I am not opposed to the state, as I find it's evil necessary"...or something to that effect. This was early on, and clearly the philosophy has evolved...but it's not the same as anarchism, per se, even though it now wants a stateless society.
I suggest anarchists of all kinds unite philosophically and ethically under
anarchism without adjectives, and economically and organizationally unite under
panarchist synthesis with other anarchists and Voluntaryists.
The distinction between modern Voluntaryism and anarchism (especially market anarchism):
Where anarchism opposes all social contracts, it does not ban others from voluntarily subjecting themselves to them (however harmful and self destructive they may be). In this sense, the anarchist and Voluntaryist can live side by side, whereas neither can live side by side with the statist (of any type) and their state. Voluntaryists wish to engage in social contracts of their own free will that do not claim geographic monopolies, while the anarchists would oppose the social contracts and only want to be governed by natural law (where harm and fraud are the only prohibited activities, and where no regulation of the individual occurs until those rules are broken).
It's a tough distinction in today's world, as Voluntaryism no longer values the state, but does value voluntary government. This makes it 100% compatible with anarchism, although only 99% identical to it. In order to become full fledged anarchists, Voluntaryists would have to give up the voluntary social contracts and live as completely individual sovereigns. In other words, no collective (like voluntary government) would govern them without them first violating natural law...even WITH their permission to do so ahead of time.
One day I hope the world is civilized enough to only contain Voluntaryists and anarchists who argue about the masochistic nature of the voluntary social contract, as opposed to the sadistic nature of the compulsory social contract; the state.
(Come to think of it, we're moving in that direction...afterall, we're arguing with small government nationalist statists about the nature of ANY compulsory external government, which certainly must be the precursory discussion to the one we'd prefer to have in anarchy/Voluntaryist society.)
