Anarchy

There are many people who reject ‘anarchy’ without truly understanding what it is; without understanding that — far from the chaos with which it is associated, and far from the violent malcontents who erroneously call themselves ‘anarchists’ — true ‘anarchy’ is the ultimate desirable outcome, the great ideal that is not only necessary in adherence to universal ethics but the end goal of any system truly embracing liberty. It is merely, by definition, the absence of government; or, put another way, the absence of that system which maintains a monopoly over the institutions of force and coercion in a given jurisdiction. 

Critics would be correct to point out that ‘anarchy’ would bring about chaos and disorder in America today, but what they (conveniently or otherwise) neglect to acknowledge is that the modern conditions are due precisely to the defects of statism, and that statism (being the very antithesis to anarchy and liberty) assures an even more extreme suffering, just one that is less obvious in the present and a bit more orderly in the short run. The truth is that it is for a lack of imagination (or for plain misunderstanding of the word) that most people cannot appreciate the merits to ‘anarchy’, and it is due primarily to fear or incentives that people latch onto the state instead. 

Put more simply, and honestly, the truth is that anarchy is incompatible with multiculturalism (the creature bread by statism), but (as we have seen) so is statism itself; that is, if we are measuring the combined effects on trust, liberty, security, and productivity within society. Of course, the problems that arise from this combination of multiculturalism and statism are hardly a defect in the designs of statism, but rather a feature which guarantees more power to the state. The difference is that, through ‘anarchy’, there is the option of groups living peacefully apart from each other, instead of being tied together “in a single garment of destiny”. The difference is that, through ‘anarchy’, the individual and his liberty are respected, whereas through statism the individual is reduced to a cog within the collective. 

At the core of ‘anarchy’ is the non-aggression principle, the inviolable ethic that, by right, people are to be secure in their persons and property from fraud and aggression. The American form of government once sought humbly to erect institutions to protect just that, but because of the ambitions of politicians, lobbyists and activists, and because the people have failed to keep the government accountable to the Constitution, the American form of government has over time become a soft despotism which has, through the moral hazards imposed and its rewiring of social and economic incentives within society, brought about a society even more incompatible with ‘anarchy’. 

The truth is that a state of liberty leans in one of two directions: either toward ‘anarchy’ (or ever smaller government) through discipline, personal responsibility, and eternal vigilance, or toward despotism by the corrupt, the indolent, and the opportunistic who seek to reimagine or rewrite the nature of man’s relationship with his government, and thus his fellow man. The battle for liberty is an eternal struggle, maintained only by the disciplined, the courageous and the vigilant; and “progress” to them means the achievement of the aforementioned ends by still smaller government for the maximal enjoyment of liberty — and for, most importantly, the assurance that their heirs will enjoy the material and spiritual advantages of ever more liberty, as opposed to the kind of ‘security’ maintained through the state only by the progressive enslavement of each subsequent generation. 

This aim of maximal liberty is not just theoretically possible but achievable through a virtuous and vigilant society, and this is the only society which can long maintain liberty. George Washington himself affirmed the concept when he asserted that “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.” As Washington put it, “The general government… can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or oppressive form ‘so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people.’” 

Where the values system and the central guiding principles for any society have been broken — as they have been through the excessive politicization (and financialization) of all things, through the rise of public education and forced ‘redistribution’, through successive waves of unassimilating immigrants, and through a form of multiculturalism unenlightened about ‘American liberty’ and downright hostile toward Americans, American history, and American culture — there is not just a critical lack of virtue, trust, and congeniality keeping the fabric of civilized society together, but also an obvious incompatibility of peoples not sharing in their ideas and priorities so far as they extend to faith, truth and morality. 

Apart from the gulf separating the major political cohorts, at least in matters of faith, responsibility and family values, they both have shared mutually in their willingness to support or condone, or otherwise tolerate, the unconstitutional conduct of their preferred administrations — ‘preferred’, in most cases, so far as they reject the alternative political candidate. Of course, this is no way to faithfully gauge the consent or the views of the public; it is, whether by design or mere effect, only to indicate public opinion on ‘the lesser of evils’ and, as it turns out as a consequence of government growing larger and more powerful between administrations, just what kind of tyranny the people are willing to tolerate. Because of the continual usurpations of power and the unconstitutional activities happening all the time in government, America has moved progressively further away from liberty — and the ideal of ‘anarchy’, or optimal individual liberty — and it has done so at great cost, both seen and unseen. 

Indeed, the enormity of the public debt and unfunded liabilities reveals the measurable failure of such a system based on statism — but the total costs, both quantitative and qualitative, are even greater than this. Ironically, if we could even retrace our steps as Americans to revive the small government of just over a century ago, before the two World Wars, that society would today be regarded as one remarkably close to ‘anarchy’ — even just on the basis of government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product: a mere three percent around the turn of the twentieth century, compared to more than forty percent in all today. 

‘Anarchy’ may be a pipe dream today. This is true, in that most people don’t understand what it is and, practically speaking, government in America has grown so large and society so confused that this kind of ‘anarchy’ — the desirable form, not the one colored in chaos — is far on the other side of social collapse. In fact, it is likely far away on the other side of the collapse of Western civilization itself; the very civilization whose ideas ushered in the age of enlightenment that practically enabled mankind to finally achieve some semblance of liberty. So, while it may indeed be a pipe dream today, it’s a worthwhile objective for those who appreciate the alternative, and for those who recall just how much closer to this ideal America once was before it evolved into the imperial force it is today: a force which has evolved into the policeman of the world while neglecting security and individual liberties at home; a force which achieves so much abroad while enabling so much destruction within. As aspirants for liberty, we have the privilege of maintaining the principles which defend it; we have that responsibility to our heirs; and we have the consolation that our ideas, better articulated, may one day reach a society capable of understanding and heeding this wisdom in good faith.