Anarchism

Would (and could) we do better without government?

-Jan Narveson-[Professor Emeritus, U of W]

Anarchism -- 2

• 1. Definitions: • Anarchism: the theory that a society

should not have a government [‘an’ - lacking; ‘archy’ - government]

• Government: a smallish number who have the generally recognized power to make and administer laws for all within its designated constituency.

• Laws (of the political type): enforceable (and enforced) general directives to all in the constituency. Laws are inherently coercive: whether we want to do what the laws tell us to do is irrelevant.

Anarchism -- 3

• 2. General theoretical commitments:• Required Subtheory: that society can get

along without government (on the “ought implies can” principle, the general anarchist claim that we should have no government implies this one)

• So: Anarchist theory should say two things:

• 1. why having a government is worse than having none*

• 2. an explanation of how it is possible to get by without government.

* interesting question: can the anarchist allow that some anarchies would be worse than some governments? We won’t address this tricky issue.

Anarchism -- 43. Anarchy and Law• Anarchy is not “lawlessness.” • So, 2 questions:• (1) how could there be any law in an anarchy?• (2) how could it be enforced?• Needed: “Ordered Anarchy”• [title of a very good book by Anthony de Jasay, btw]

Two kinds of law: (1) Natural and (2) Legislated- if it is “natural” it could not be legislated- at least, not by a legislature- since an anarchy would have no legislature; so if it has law in

the political sense, it must be natural.... - but read on ... ->

Anarchism -- 5

3.1. Theories about natural law:(1) it’s like chemistry or geometry: “just there”(2) it’s “god-given”much better is:(3) it’s man-made, but without being legislated- such law would arise from human interaction- Especially, from cooperation: A and B - (a) work together for ends they both have, and - (b) both engaging in that work together yields a gain for

each compared with separate activity- Thus potential cooperators have a motive for cooperation- and reason to accept any rules enabling that cooperation

Anarchism -- 6

3.2 The (most plausible) Natural Law: Mutual Non-Aggression [or: Peace]

- the general form of natural law: we may do as we like, provided it is compatible with others doing as they like

- [this is a development of the “Golden Rule” idea:- - People are different, and don’t necessarily love each

other- - But they all have an interest in not being harmed- -> Plausible bargain: you don’t harm me, I won’t harm

you!

Anarchism -- 7

3.3 AgreementsSuppose I promise you that I’ll do x, provided that you do yand you agree that you’ll do y if I do x

Now if you do y and I don’t do x, I’ve harmed you:that is, you have lost whatever you invested in that performance,

making you (slightly?) worse off, without my doing what would compensate you

This gives you a motivation to take action to make up for the loss if you can....

this means (a little bit, or a lot, depending, of) war - not peace.So: our agreements generate (enforceable) laws ..But not political laws, for they only apply to the people who made the

agreement with each other.

Anarchism -- 83.4 Side note on political versions of the “social contract”:Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant -- all thought that all rational persons

would agree to government- this is not obviously true!- but they will agree to the law of nature- [and if they don’t, they’re at war with the rest of us]- and will therefore agree to keep their agreements- [this is not verbal agreement, but agreement in action.- As in David Hume’s analogy of two men rowing a boat. They never

make a verbal agreement, but each rows in synch with the other, thus getting the two of them where they want to go.

It is very unobvious that government is like that.

Anarchism -- 93.5 “ very unobvious that government is like that”: But the law of

general peace is like that Here the “common goal” is: peace, enabling each of us to pursue our

separate goals.

[This is Hobbes’s First Law of Nature: We are (1) to seek peace, always; and (2) only use war to defend ourselves (- or to defend others in peril, if

they ask for our help....)

Anarchism -- 103.6 Voluntary Associations- These are groups of persons who join without being compelled to - or, voluntarily remain when they were free to leave- Society, as such, is neither voluntary nor involuntary - we just

find ourselves in it- The State, as such, is not a voluntary association

- With voluntary associations, general agreement on the goals of the association as such is presumed (otherwise, people would leave, as they are free to do)

Anarchism -- 113.6 Voluntary Associations (continued) Some examples:- clubs (such as, chess clubs, musical societies, athletic associations)- religious groups (provided exit is permitted)- commercial: businesses and their customers (each participates

voluntarily)- Charitable associations (such as the K-W Chamber Music

Society!)- and many more!note that many of these have some governing structureand some do not, such as a group of children in the playground...An anarchic society does not have one government, but it has many

governments among its various component groups

Anarchism -- 12

3.7 The Anarchist wants society to be a Voluntary Association

- - unlike States.The objection to government is that its laws are not fully

consensual. - Criminal law can be: everybody (including murderers)

agrees that murder should be outlawed

- but the administration of criminal law in many respects is not.

- e.g. victims are not usually compensated ...

Anarchism -- 133.7 The Anarchist wants society to be a Voluntary Association

(continued):

The difference between government and any voluntary associations:

If an association that you are a member of tells you to do something, you have agreed in advance to the general rules by which you are asked to do it

If the Government tells you to do something, you have not necessarily agreed to those rules.

Complications:

[in particular cases, you might think your association has misinterpreted or misapplied its rules;

and you might think that what the government asks you to do it perfectly OK!]

Anarchism -- 144 Side Note on Socialist and Egalitarian anarchisms

In the late 19th Century (especially) there were extensive activities by people claiming to be “anarchists”

- many bomb-throwing and gun-toting loonies among them- (they assassinated quite a few people, such as Czar Alexander I- - the chap who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand was a self-described

“anarchist”- they gave anarchism a bad name

They also acted under the aegis of absurd theoriesAnarchism was generally regarded as a wild-eyed, utopian viewOn the versions then being touted, this was correct!

Assumptions that “all men are brothers” or that we all want to share equally with everybody else, etc., are not acceptable - being pretty obviously false ...

Anarchism -- 154.1 Side Note on “Socialist anarchisms”

A main theme of these people insofar as they had a theory was socialismproduction would be socialized, distribution according to some such slogan as this

famous one fromMarx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”The problem with such versions, as Hume pointed out long ago, is that people

aren’t like that- So to try to get it instantiated among real people would require huge

centralized compulsion.- Which is government - not anarchismAny version of anarchism requiring that human nature be radically changed is

untenable

Anarchism -- 164.1 Side Note on “Socialist anarchisms”

If anarchism is to be possible, it must be compatible with human nature

people are: diverse, but considerably self-interested

People tend to prefer themselves, their families, their friends .. etc.

So they will want a social order in which people get, roughly, what they earn

(Some will not. This is the problem of crime, which we’ll discuss)

- So, is anarchy impossible?- - maybe not ....

Anarchism -- 175. “Capitalist Anarchism” more generally: society based on voluntary associationsthere would have to be pretty general acceptance of the general Hobbesian

principle: that people have a right to do whatever does not harm others as such

[that is: actions that benefit oneself or one’s preferred group without doing so by inflicting damage and loss on others, are to be regarded as OK]

NOTE: on a person-to-person level, this principle is widely accepted[example: we regard theft as wrong. --- but we tolerate taxation! Why?- the anarchist says: it’s still wrong - governments have no special rights

Anarchism -- 185. “Capitalist Anarchism” 5.1 The functions usually regarded as essential in government:a) enforcementb) adjudicationc) legislation

How could each by carried on without government?

Anarchism -- 195. “Capitalist Anarchism”a) enforcement

How could this by carried on without government?

Answer:every person is understood to have a general right to security of person and propertybut not a right that others do the protecting

So protection is to be done by private agencies:a) “protection companies”: private police/security guards/etcb) protective co-operatives (Neighborhood Watches are an approximation)Note on reality: most actual security activities in our society are done now by non-

governmental agenciesprivate police greatly outnumber public police...

Anarchism -- 205. “Capitalist Anarchism”b) The Judicial functionNo centralized judiciaryWhen people have disagreements, it is to their interest to come to agreementA main way is arbitrationThe arbitrator does not need to be government-appointed.Law is generally divided betweentort law (claims that somebody damaged somebody’s property in some way)

1. Civil law: torts and contracts1a. Tort law refers to any given body of law that creates and provides

remedy for civil wrongs that do not arise from contractual duties. A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible

1b. Contract Law: the interpretation of agreements understood as binding2. criminal law: cases of violating a legislated law forbidding some actionIn anarchism, there would only be private legislation.So: all law is “civil”

Anarchism -- 215. “Capitalist Anarchism”b) The Judicial functionIn anarchism, there would only be private legislation.So: all law is “civil”Can this work?note that it has been the case in many societies in the past and possibly one at present

(Somalia)Crimes would be understood as torts: damages to person or propertyVictims of crimes have rights to compensationThey have an interest in finding the offender and compelling him to provide

compensation[including punishment? That is: could victim Smith demand that offender Jones be

(say) whipped or imprisoned or executed?]Common law would spring up (has sprung up) to handle such things...No judge would have general authority over all. But he would have the authority given

to him by the parties to the dispute.

Anarchism -- 225. “Capitalist Anarchism”c) The Legislative functionIn anarchism, there would only be private legislation.It would apply only to all who accepted that particular source of rules(example: workers accept the authority of their employers insofar as they have

contracted with themRoman Catholics cede some authority to the Popemembers of the knitting club cede some authority to their board of directorsetc.

Thus law would be “polycentric”Is that possible?Note that at present, the world contains numerous different bodies of legislation, for

each country, each province, each municipality, etc.How much is that like the “legislations” of many different voluntary associations?

Anarchism -- 23

Resources for further thought:Bryan Caplan’s Anarchist FAQ Bruce Benson: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State

To Serve and ProtectRobert Paul Wolff: In Defense of AnarchismCrispin Sartwell: Against the StateAnthony de Jasay: Ordered AnarchismRobert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and UtopiaMurray Rothbard: The Ethics of LibertyWalter Block: Defending the UndefendableAeon J. Skoble: Deleting the State: An Argument about Government

John T. Sanders, The Ethical Argument Against Government

Jan Narveson: Two papers on Anarchism are on my website.