The following is a response to my previous two essays about anarchist political philosophy.
It’s unfortunate that more people don’t take Anarchism (which is better called “volunteerism”) seriously as a social/political philosophy. The reality is that I personally believe the end goal of anarchism, a society free from state coercion, is the right goal to have. However, this is a bit like saying an ideal society is one where everyone gets along and helps each other out. The goals of libertarian social volunteerism are the right goals, but in the following I will argue that due to human nature, limited resources and the reality of ideological influence it serves only as a moral ideal to be striven for but necessity compels us to the need for a state in some form. Simply put, anarchism is theoretically compelling on a moral level but practically it is nearly impossible to fully achieve in the world as it is today.
The Trouble of Human Nature
It was James Madison who said “If men were angels there would be no need for government”. This statement largely sums up the problem with Anarchism. The theory relies on the rationality and morality of human beings. Human beings have wildly varying degrees of rationality and morality. The easiest way to demonstrate this is by imagining the difference between trying to develop anarchism in an advanced moral city in a western democracy vs trying to implement it in Afghanistan or China or the ancient land of the Vikings. Are we really to assume all these societies would suddenly resort to private security firms resolving disputes without violence through privately chosen moderators? Of course not! The point here is not to say that anarchism is not possible, but that the degree to which such a system can be implemented depends largely on the character of the people among whom it is being implemented.
Anarchists seem to forget that the story of human history in every part of the world is the story that begins without a state. Yet in every society in every part of the world the same structure of the state arose. Is this coincidence? Indeed from a sociological standpoint it would seem reasonable to think that the state is the natural result of human beings freely interacting. Why didn’t any of the primitive societies turn into an anarchist system with private security firms and private arbitrators etc? Why is it that in every region initiation of violence eventually monopolized? The answer would seem to be best explained by human nature in the context of the world we live in.
Limited Resources, Inequality and Human Violence
We live in a world of limited resources, inequality and the human will to power and well being. Let’s imagine village A is in a great location with abundant resources but essentially no defenses against violence. Now let’s imagine nearby Village B (a warlike tribe) is suffering extensively from very limited resources. This arraignment leads to the rational incentive for violence as a possible solution to the suffering village B is experiencing. village B might engage in trade or other means to access the resources of village A but the cost and complexity of doing that might be higher that village B is willing to pay. In fact if the ideological makeup of village B is one that values conquest on an ideological level they may see both the glory of conquest and the added resources as a win/win.
Anarchists seem to assume human beings organize according to rational economic principles. And this is largely true the more rational a society becomes. However, human beings are still highly irrational creatures. Human beings are driven not just by economic interests but arguably primarily by ideological interests. Anarchists themselves prove this with their ideological adherence to the non aggression principle. This is not a purely rational economic principle. It is a moral/ideological one. There is nothing irrational about stealing and getting away with it (especially when resources are limited) from a purely economic standpoint and much of human history and human society operated under this premise in the conquest ethic. In fact many religions and ideologies in history have required a state to even exist at all. Many other extoll the virtues of conquest. Are we to assume these ideologies cultures and religions don’t exist or are going to go away? The story of most of human history is the story of the consolidation of violence from small warring tribes battling to control resources (primarily in the form of land) into a series of 195 security firms we call “states” who have monopolized their services over essentially all the usable land on earth.
Legitimacy, Violence and Ownership
But why does violence naturally monopolize in a given geographical region? It has to do with land ownership. Land is a resource and historically (and probably still today) is the most valuable resource. Land is ultimately owned by someone. Anarchists seem to forget is that in practical (rather than moral) terms ownership is determined by possession and possession is at its root determined by who is more willing to use violence to possess. Anarchists love to complain about the immorality of property rights violations while vikings laugh and cut them to pieces and take their land.
Anarchists can claim that certain types of property ownership are “illegitimate” but they are simply appealing to morality. Human beings DO NOT share a common morality but they do share a common desire to not be killed. This is why violence always ends up being the ultimate currency that governs human affairs. We can dream all day about a time when people no longer use violence as a means to get what they want but that literally has been the nature of mankind and all of the animal kingdom since the beginning. So what happened in history was that people began to band together and use violence to take procession of the most valuable resource from those who they deemed they could successfully take it from. This is the natural order. The stronger animal takes the best resources for itself and its kin. In human affairs the ones who owned the land (through violence) became the ones who controlled the resources and those who wanted access to those resources had to play by the rules of the owners. This has not changed.
Anarchists think they own their property. They don’t. The reality is the land they “own” is owned by the group who has the strongest violent force behind them. You are subject to the state because the state is the institution that originally took ownership of that land by force. The state will tell you that you “own” the property but the reality is that they are just letting you use the land they ultimately own because you are not as willing or able to use violence to possess the land as they are. That is the sad reality of living in a world with limited resources that are ultimately controlled by possession and violence.
What is Civilization?
Human beings do have a sense of morality and the trend of human history has seen great advances in human beings ability to cooperate in order to create wealth and reduce the need for violence in human affairs. In fact, it would seem that our moral and social progress is largely measured by the increase in our liberty from violence. However, it must be recognized that this advance into cooperation and away from violence is predicated on moral advancement and is rather contrary to the state of nature where we are mere animals fighting over limited resources. I would argue that this is what civilization is and what it means. Civilization is mankind rising above our animalistic instincts into a higher way of being.
Human civilization has indeed progressed greatly from past days of total dictatorship and conquest into societies that today provide much higher levels of human liberty and voluntary cooperation. The move from dictatorship to democracy is a move in the right direction. A move toward liberty and a world less controlled by state violence. Indeed in this moral sense Anarchists are 100% correct. This is the goal. The goal is to eliminate the need for violence at all. But this is an ideal, far beyond our ability at the current times due to scarcity combined with human imperfection. This ideal social state of mankind is what my faith tradition refers to as Zion: a state of human unity around love and truth.
And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings. (4th Nephi 1)
The Greatness of The United States
So why am I a patriotic American? Because America is primarily an idea, not a government. Indeed at times the American government and our people have failed to live up to these high ideals but the ideals remain. The Declaration of Independence was a document rooted in the philosophy of liberty as the human ideal and that government was only a practical necessity. The constitution of the United States was and is a practical document meant to try and balance the need for the state (as we contend with human nature) with the right of every person to liberty from coercion and violence. Of all the countries in the world it was the founders of the US who seemed to most clearly understand the vision and who produced the best system for dealing with the current state of mankind.
The battle of our political systems in the US today is a battle between those who wish to continue that balance as we move toward greater liberty and those who see the state (and its inherent violence) as the means of social progress rather than the bain of social progress. When I say I am a conservative it is this vision of liberty and limiting government that I am conserving with the hope that as free people advance morally we can further strip away the need for the state until we arrive at what my faith tradition calls Zion. A condition where the state is no longer needed due to our own freely choosing right behavior out of love for our nieghbor.
The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. …“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.” — D Todd Christofferson
A Conservative Cousin.
Anarchists should know that a conservative like myself shares their vision of a stateless society. Progressives don’t share that vision. However, even though I share that vision, for the reasons I have pointed out above, I don’t think large scale human societies like the United States have sufficiently overcome human nature, ideology and limited resources to make that happen fully though I believe we should work toward that. My goal in life is to work toward Zion (starting with myself) by being part of the deeper cultural changes that allow for us to reduce the need for the state. This work is gradual and all I can do is move it forward one inch at a time. So yes I am a conservative, and I am conserving what I believe to be the vision that is the most practical path toward human liberty. I hope my anarchist friends realize we should be allies. Our vision is far more closely aligned than the progressive vision which sees the state (along with its violence and corruption) as the tool for progress toward their utopian dreams.