Re Karen’s post about the Reason blog discussion of anarchy and Butler Shaffer’s article, What is Anarchy?, I’ve posted my own reply, which I repeat below in case some joker takes it down.
“Most libertarian opponents of anarchy appear to be attacking a straw man. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will “work”; nor that you predict it will or “can” be achieved. It only means you believe (a) aggression is not justified; and (b) states necessarily employ aggression.
Anyone who is not an anarchist must either believe (1) aggression is justified; or (2) states do not necessarily employ aggression.
View (2) seems plainly false. States tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They outlaw competing defense agencies, thus also employing aggression.
As for (1), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. But I have yet to see anyone–criminal, socialist, or anti-anarchist–show how the initiation of force against innocent victims is justified.
Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t “work” or is not “practical” is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved–I for one don’t think we will. But that does not mean states are justified.
Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians of both stripes would all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and “should” not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn it and work to reduce it.
To my claim that crime is evil and unjustified, it would just be silly and non-responsive to reply, “but that’s an impractical view, since there will always be crime.” The fact that there will always be crime–that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights–does not mean that it’s “impractical” to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified.
Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, “anarchy won’t work”. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e. the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.
Other utilitarian replies like “but we need a state” do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims–i.e., the criminal/socialist mentality.
As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.
3:11 pm on January 16, 2004
