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
Anarchism -- 4
3. 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 NonAggression [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 Agreements
Suppose I promise you that I’ll do x, provided that you do y
and 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 -- 8
3.4 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 -- 9
3.5 “ 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 -- 10
3.6 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 -- 11
3.6 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 structure
and 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 -- 13
3.7 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 -- 14
4
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 theories
Anarchism was generally regarded as a wild-eyed, utopian view
On 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 -- 15
4.1 Side Note on “Socialist anarchisms”
A main theme of these people insofar as they had a theory was socialism
production would be socialized, distribution according to some such slogan as this
famous one from
Marx: “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 anarchism
Any version of anarchism requiring that human nature be radically changed is
untenable
Anarchism -- 16
4.1 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 -- 17
5.
“Capitalist Anarchism”
more generally: society based on voluntary associations
there 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 -- 18
5.
a)
b)
c)
“Capitalist Anarchism”
5.1 The functions usually regarded as essential in government:
enforcement
adjudication
legislation
How could each by carried on without government?
Anarchism -- 19
5.
a)
“Capitalist Anarchism”
enforcement
How could this by carried on without government?
Answer:
every person is understood to have a general right to security of person and property
but not a right that others do the protecting
So protection is to be done by private agencies:
a)
“protection companies”: private police/security guards/etc
b)
protective co-operatives (Neighborhood Watches are an approximation)
Note on reality: most actual security activities in our society are done now by nongovernmental agencies
private police greatly outnumber public police...
Anarchism -- 20
5.
“Capitalist Anarchism”
b) The Judicial function
No centralized judiciary
When people have disagreements, it is to their interest to come to agreement
A main way is arbitration
The arbitrator does not need to be government-appointed.
Law is generally divided between
tort law (claims that somebody damaged somebody’s property in some way)
1. Civil law: torts and contracts
1a. 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 binding
2. criminal law: cases of violating a legislated law forbidding some action
In anarchism, there would only be private legislation.
So: all law is “civil”
Anarchism -- 21
5.
“Capitalist Anarchism”
b) The Judicial function
In 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 property
Victims of crimes have rights to compensation
They 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 -- 22
5.
“Capitalist Anarchism”
c) The Legislative function
In 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 them
Roman Catholics cede some authority to the Pope
members of the knitting club cede some authority to their board of directors
etc.
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 Protect
Robert Paul Wolff: In Defense of Anarchism
Crispin Sartwell: Against the State
Anthony de Jasay: Ordered Anarchism
Robert Nozick: Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Murray Rothbard: The Ethics of Liberty
Walter Block: Defending the Undefendable
Aeon 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.