Then We’d Have Anarchy!
I think its
a false argument that opposition to authoritarianism in all its
forms equals advocacy of anarchy.
why, it is necessary to make a distinction between aggressive violence
(almost always morally wrong) and defensive violence. Most of what
the government does today falls into the category of aggressive
violence; e.g., taxing us to redistribute money for myriad purposes,
controlling otherwise peaceful human interactions, etc. Therefore,
we who oppose aggressive violence would like to see most of what
government does done away with and society returned to a voluntarist
basis; that is, people dealing with one another freely and openly
as they desire (or not) with the only rule being, the prohibition
against aggressive violence.
Constitution tried to put all that into words, but failed in part
because of vague, imprecise language (examples include the clumsy
wording of the Second Amendment, and of course the infamous general
welfare clause, which has been the source of endless mischief)
and also because it did not explicitly state, among other things,
that the federal compact among the states was voluntarily entered
into and could be voluntarily left if the people of any state
decided the compact no longer functioned as intended or in the best
interests of their state, as they defined those interests.
usually favor the elimination of all government, which they see
as the primal evil that inevitably escapes whatever shackles (such
as the Constitution) are placed upon it. While I tend to agree with
that, and wish we could exist with no government at all, I also
accept that the only way that will ever work in the real world is
when everyone is both committed to and practices the doctrine of
the non-initiation of force. Which of course, will probably never
happen. What I mean is, laws against murder or theft and the need
of a system to statutorily define such criminal actions, investigate
criminal offenses, pursue, try convict and incarcerate criminals,
etc., would not be necessary at all in a hypothetical village comprised
of the people who live the principle of no first-use of violence.
Anarchy the absence of any government at all would
work. There would be no crime, hence no need for criminal laws and
so on. Everything else could be handled by discussion and mediation.
it be nice?
But the reality
is there are and probably always will be bad people grifters
and criminals. Hence, I concede the need for a minimalist government
that is, for what I call the rule of law. A bare-bones
mechanism, explicitly defined, for dealing with those who commit
aggressive violence. I also concede the need for some sort of organized
defense against other nations. Nothing like we have now which
is a sick parody of defense. Just a viable mechanism
for warding off aggressive violence directed our way by other nations
But how would
this be funded without resorting to aggressive violence and so obviating
the whole exercise?
I see two possible
trade tariffs applied to the goods produced in un-free countries
such as China. Free trade with un-free countries is
an oxymoron. Libertarians, among whom I count myself, often have
a blind spot on this one. But they should object to trading
with countries (and companies) that exploit people that is,
countries and companies that use aggressive violence against citizens
and workers. Imposing a tax (a tariff) on the goods produced thereby
to take the profit out of the exploitation of slave (or semi-slave)
labor is both a sort of admonishment against such practices as well
as a way to make the aggressor pay to fund a genuinely free system
(our hypothetical one) while also providing an inducement to encourage
them to become more free, too.
the rest of the article
[send him mail] is an automotive
columnist and author of Automotive
Atrocities and Road Hogs (2011). Visit his
© 2012 Eric Peters
Best of Eric Peters