Anarchism

1. Anarchism Would (and could) we do better without government? Jan Narveson [Professor Emeritus, U of W]

2. Anarchism -- 2 • 1. Definitions: • Anarchism: the theory that a society should nothave agovernment [‘an’ - lacking; ‘archy’ - government] • Government: a smallish number who have the generally recognized power to make and administerlaws 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.

3. 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 theoryshould 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.

4. 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 ... ->

5. Anarchism -- 5 3.1. Theories about natural law: • it’s like chemistry or geometry: “just there” • 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

6. 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!

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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....)

10. 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 agreementon the goals of the association as such ispresumed (otherwise, people would leave, as they are free to do)

11. 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

12. 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 ...

13. 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, youhave 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!]

14. Anarchism -- 14 • 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 ...

15. 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

16. 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 ....

17. Anarchism -- 17 • “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

18. Anarchism -- 18 • “Capitalist Anarchism” 5.1 The functions usually regarded as essential in government: • enforcement • adjudication • legislation How could each by carried on without government?

19. Anarchism -- 19 • “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: • “protection companies”: private police/security guards/etc • protective co-operatives (Neighborhood Watches are an approximation) Note on reality: most actual security activities in our society are done now by non-governmental agencies private police greatly outnumber public police...

20. Anarchism -- 20 • “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”

21. Anarchism -- 21 • “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.

22. Anarchism -- 22 • “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?

23. 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.