Anarchy Is Neither Chaos nor Hard to Find

[PAF]

Mises Wire
Andreas Granath
05/09/2024





In mundane speech and in perhaps any dictionary, anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder. This may not come as a surprise since left-wing anarchists have worked hard on destroying anarchy’s reputation.

As a former statist, I used to share this view of anarchy—a chaotic dystopia. But, as I’ve learned over the years, anarchy is the opposite of that. However, this can only be realized by looking at it logically.


Defining Anarchy

The word anarchy stems from ancient Greek and means “without ruler or authority.” In defining anarchy it is crucial to define the role of a ruler. Left-wing anarchists oppose natural hierarchies, private property, and government. By their logic, a ruler is someone who owns private property, holds a managerial position, or is a government official.

On the other hand, someone who forces another to share his means of production would not be considered a ruler. Hence, this view of anarchy is incoherent and contradictory. That being said, we need to examine a more coherent political philosophy: anarchocapitalism, a right-wing anarchist political philosophy.

Such right-wing anarchists define a ruler in the libertarian way—as someone who uses violence or the threat of it to control others. This is deduced from the libertarian axiom of self-ownership as a natural right. This right must on logical grounds be extended to include owning property.

Now that we have a logical and coherent view of a ruler, we can define anarchy. It is a social relationship between people based on the absence of coercion through violence or the threat of it. Strictly speaking, anarchy is voluntary social cooperation between self-owned individuals and their privately owned belongings.


Finding Anarchy

The typical statist will almost always ask an anarchist to point to a specific time and place where anarchy has worked out. To this, the typical (right-wing) anarchist will most often point to the Icelandic Commonwealth or Cospaia. While these are great examples of larger well-functioning societies, there are many other examples I will show you.

Anarchy, which is an interpersonal relationship between individuals without violence or the threat of it, can be found everywhere. By looking at it in a microperspective, we find that anarchic relations are more common than nonanarchic relations.

Most people are in anarchic relationships with each other. They exchange goods, services, ideas, information, love, and many other valuable things on a daily basis. In other words, value is traded for value voluntarily.

On this value-trading principle, we build families, societies, businesses, and other groups. However, while there is anarchy within smaller societies, there is still a nonanarchic relationship to the state. Most people cannot see this because there cannot be an interpersonal relationship with an individual and an absent collective. This is because only individuals act and interact.

Thus, the state hides and camouflages itself through its employees with their different professions. Consider someone who decides not to pay his taxes. Although he knows of the consequences he will suffer from the state, there are many interpersonal relationships to study in this matter.

At first he might receive a notice from someone at the Internal Revenue Service. After having ignored several warnings, armed policemen will show up at his house. While in custody and awaiting trial, he will be guarded by some prison guards. Eventually he will get his trial, and when in court he is antagonized by judges and prosecutors.

Bear in mind that these people who are directly involved represent just the tip of the iceberg. Below the sea level, we have politicians who enact laws, taxpayers, and voters who feed the state along with the lobbyists.

When we break down the “relationship between the state and individuals” into interpersonal relationships, the picture becomes clearer. The state functions like a band of robbers but in a very sophisticated and sneaky way.

Furthermore, we should consider that public servants are also in an anarchic relationship with each other. Meanwhile, they—just like private citizens—are in a nonanarchic relationship with the state. There is also, as pointed out by Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, anarchy between states. At least until a war breaks out.

In conclusion, anarchy means without ruler. In a microperspective, it is a social relationship between two individuals without violence or the threat of it. This microanarchy can be and is extended to involve larger groups of people. Thus, there is no limit of how big society can get before anarchy becomes inefficient and government must take control.

Finally, anarchy is spontaneous order, not chaos. This spontaneous order can be found everywhere, and being an anarchist is not so controversial as people think.



https://mises.org/mises-wire/anarchy...-nor-hard-find

[Swordsmyth]

The Icelandic tribal government was not anarchy, it was tribal.
And it ended in bloody chaos so bad they begged the King of Norway to rule over them to put an end to it.

[TheTexan]

This spontaneous order can be found everywhere

Yea and that spontaneous order is called government.

[acptulsa]

Yea and that spontaneous order is called government.

Not until it tries to kill somebody.

[TheTexan]

Not until it tries to kill somebody.

Anarchists like to fantasize about what the world would look like without aggression. The truth is, it would look astonishingly similar to what we have today. We'd have much more countries, and we'd all be more prosperous, but it would fundamentally look extremely similar to what we have today. There would probably still be a Federal Reserve, there would still be police, there would still be of course highways and roads, there would still be (omgosh!) taxes, there would still be the IRS, there would still be militaries, and you would still have to wait in line for an hour at your local DMV to get a license to drive your car.

Whatever you choose to call that (government or otherwise), it would exist regardless of the existence of aggression/coercion/murder.

[acptulsa]

The tourist attractions of Auschwitz, Poland (if any) would certainly look different.

[CCTelander]

Yea and that spontaneous order is called government.

Nah, it really isn’t.

[Matt Collins]

Anarchy is the same as democracy: mob-rule. The problem with anarchy is that it fails to take into account human nature and the fact that there are predatorial humans who will prey on other humans. Government really only has 2 jobs: providing justice and upholding contracts / securing individual rights. Granted it doesn't do that very well.

[Occam's Banana]

The problem with anarchy is [...]

The problem with someone's problem with anarchy is [...]

The problem with anarchy (whatever that is) is that those who have problems with whatever they think anarchy is use definitions of anarchy (whatever that is) that are different from the definitions of anarchy (whatever that is) used by those who don't have problems with whatever they think anarchy is.

That's why my own political philosophy is best and most precisely denoted as "post-anarcho-warlordism". And don't even bother asking me what post-anarcho-warlordism is, because if I told you, you'd probably just say it's "really" something else (even though you didn't even know what it was a moment ago, and had to ask), so that you could then tell me how stupid and wrong I am, and now you can't do that ha-ha (at least, not that way), so there!

[PAF]

That's why my own political philosophy is best and most precisely denoted as "post-anarcho-warlordism". And don't even bother asking me what post-anarcho-warlordism is, because if I told you, you'd probably just say it's "really" something else (even though you didn't even know what it was a moment ago, and had to ask), so that you could then tell me how stupid and wrong I am, and now you can't do that ha-ha (at least, not that way), so there!

Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share

[Occam's Banana]

Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is.

[PAF]

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is.

Rule? I'm shocked that you didn't say principle!

[Occam's Banana]

Rule? I'm shocked that you didn't say principle!

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: always tell everyone that the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club is "never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is".

[PAF]

First rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club: always tell everyone that the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club is "never tell anyone what the first rule of Post-Anarcho-Warlotdist Club is".

The introvert that I am, it is my extroverted tendencies that has landed me in philosophical trouble here on the forums, and out and about. Though I am a devout member of the Post-Anarcho-Warlordist Club, I can't seem to abide by that first rule. It's also something that I can't seem to work on

[TheTexan]

Leave me hanging then, that seems to be my lot in life

But I promise to not make fun of you if you care to share

I'll help you out and give you a hint. What he refers to as "post-anarcho-warlordism" is really something else.

[PAF]

I'll help you out and give you a hint. What he refers to as "post-anarcho-warlordism" is really something else.

I just wanted to see if I could get him to spill the beans, but, he caught on lol.

[Swordsmyth]

Whatever you choose to call that (government or otherwise), it would exist regardless of the existence of aggression/coercion/murder.

I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)

[TheTexan]

I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)

The reason why I think government would exist absent aggression, is that people seem to generally like things the way they are. They may tinker around the edges, but ultimately, most people wouldn't choose to secede from this system if they were even given the opportunity to. In other words most people are participating in this system voluntarily.

Only a few people (us, basically), are being held to this social contract against our will.

[Occam's Banana]

I'll help you out and give you a hint. What he refers to as "post-anarcho-warlordism" is really something else.

Exactly!

[fisharmor]

I disagree.
But you will never get rid of aggression/coercion/murder.

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state or an indistinguishable facsimile of it and they will use aggression/coercion/murder to grow it until they meet an organized group capable of resisting. (so people who don't like aggression/coercion/murder have to set up their own version designed to minimize aggression/coercion/murder)

And now you've finally added being anti-2A to your list.

[TheTexan]

And now you've finally added being anti-2A to your list.

It's overrated anyway. It's supposed to be the mechanism to protect us from a tyrannical government... and yet, here we are.

[Invisible Man]

Yea and that spontaneous order is called government.

Right, government, which does automatically exist everywhere that humans interact with one another.

As opposed to the state, which does not.

Anarchism relates to the latter, not the former.

[TheTexan]

Right, government, which does automatically exist everywhere that humans interact with one another.

As opposed to the state, which does not.

Anarchism relates to the latter, not the former.

Yea and I never said otherwise

[ClaytonB]

... it fails to take into account human nature ...

False. The specious arguments in favor of a magic-earth-daddy who's going to make everything into Utopian paradise-on-earth by the wave of his magic scepter -- which amounts to nothing more than clubbing people over the head according to his own whims and interests -- is what "fails to take into account human nature". It's a great story for those who currently hold the scepter. But as with any Ring of Power or Iron Throne, the only thing it creates is a universal war-of-all-against-all to hold that pinnacle of power. To have it is to be a god in human terms. All others, but the man-god who holds the Ring of Power, are but slaves.

It's true that getting on a megaphone and shouting, "Hey everyone, we're doing anarchy now! OK?! So, stop trying to grasp the Ring of Power! 1-2-3... GO!" will not work. But this is a complete strawman of what philosophical anarchy is arguing. Rather, philosophical anarchy begins with realism about the political order. A royal house, for example, is practically indistinguishable from a large, monopolistic corporation. It's a profit-maximizing institution, where its sense of "profit" is far more general than just dollar amounts. Thus, every State that has ever existed is really just a market competitor in the market of sovereign territory. Some competitors were very successful, as the Romans, others were annihilated, as the Carthaginians. From this vantage-point, we are not critiquing the State from the artificial distinction typical of Republican think-tankers between "public sector" and "private sector", as though anything "private sector" is inherently good and anything "public sector" is inherently bad for reasons unknown. No, the critique is much more rational than all that.

One of the best starting-points for people who fall prey to the "inevitability" argument and other worn-out talking-points, is Hoppe's argument that social democracy is objectively inferior to monarchy. This argument is frequently misunderstood as though Hoppe is arguing for monarchy. No, it is not an argument for monarchy but, rather, an argument against democracy. What is the problem with democracy? In short, democracy converts territorial boundaries, public finance and government decision-making into a tragedy-of-the-commons. In the case of a monarchy, most of these interests are at least internalized. The monarch has a strong interest in preserving the asset value of the public lands, even if those lands are not legally categorized as "Crown lands", that is, even if they are not the private property of the monarch. That is because the monarch is an indirect beneficiary of the value of all land and assets under their territorial power.

Philosophical anarchy is just the result of extrapolating this reasoning process to its logical limit. Monarchy is better than social democracy, but the monarch still socializes or externalizes many aspects of the social order by virtue of the power of monopoly. In many ways, social democracy itself is the inevitable historical failure-mode of monarchy... as the monarch creates an ever-more centralized bureaucratic hierarchy of monopolistic privileges, the more vulnerable the teetering tower of tyrannical privilege becomes to collapse into some kind of collectivism or other. More often than not, it's the second-most powerful man besides the monarch who provides the nudge required to topple the tower, and is best positioned to reformulate a new government with himself at the top, in the aftermath. This entire category of social order is inherently self-destructive and unstable. It necessarily results in an endless cycle of revolutions and (as a corollary) massive, scorched-earth campaigns as the rivaling civil war factions each take opportunistic swipes at the other, trying to weaken their opponents whenever they get the opportunity, destroying any long-run value (capital) which may have been built in the interim. The alternative to this is, rather than having one king, to acknowledge that every man is king (of himself).

This has kinda-sorta happened at a few junctures in history, to one degree or another. The Magna Carta. 1776. And so on. The writ of habeas corpus. Abolition. The Bill of Rights. Even the Gospel. All of these are pointing in the direction that no man has the right to go to war with any other man, unprovoked, and any actor who does this is, ipso facto, a criminal, even if he has fancy robes and a fancy hat.



All of these insights are moving towards the direction of philosophical anarchy. Both anarchy and collectivism are a failure-mode in respect to monarchy. The difference between them is that collectivism keeps everything that doesn't work in monarchy, and throws out the rest; whereas, anarchy keeps what works in monarchy, and throws out the rest. That is the difference between them.

There is a deeper sense in which anarchy does not work. To understand this sense, one must understand the nature of religious devotion, and how religious devotion can be weaponized for the preservation of provably irrational and unworkable social theories, like Marxism. By indoctrinating the Marxist neophyte into a social order that operates on a non-rational basis, the permanent Marxist revolutionary class is able to "transcend reason". This is what all those "We punch Nazis" signs that Antifa/BLM hold up at their street-protests really mean. It just means, "We cannot be reasoned with. Don't even try." Since it is possible to distort human nature into pretzels in this way using religious cult indoctrination, the problem of universally eradicating human slavery (which is what anti-statism is really about) is far more complicated than the mere political calculus. If we could all sit down and reason like adults without Antifa/BLM showing up to flip our cars over and torch the coffee-shop we're meeting in to talk, a rational social order would quickly and easily follow. Whether it would be 1776-minarchism or full-blown philosophical anarchism would be fine with me, either way. I'm not that kind of anti-statist who thinks 1776-minarchism is an unbearable tyranny. But the point is that we can never get to the desired end-goal through mere rational discussion, because rational discussion itself is being actively subverted by the psychotic, Marxist useful-idiots.

For this and many more reasons, the ultimate solution is religious. You can't escape the religious connotation to all of this. And that's where this all goes back to the Gospel, and that's why I keep harping on the Gospel on this forum. If you want to be free, believe the Gospel. If you want others to be free, preach the Gospel. The further you dive into the psycho-social delusions of the Marxist left, the more you are going to realize how absolutely impossible a polite, civil, clinical solution really is and how absolutely requisite a religious solution is. And when you survey the menu of religious options, asking yourself, "Is this religion about setting people free?", you will find that there is only ONE that is. That is the Gospel.

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free." (Galatians 5:1)

"So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36)

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

In summary, I am a philosophical anarchical anti-statist and monarchist: "No Lord but Jesus. No kingdom but God's."

[Swordsmyth]

And now you've finally added being anti-2A to your list.

???

In what twisted way have you imagined that?

The permanent existence of aggression/coercion/murder is the primary reason for the 2ndA.
The good people have the right to the means to defend themselves.

[fisharmor]

???

In what twisted way have you imagined that?

The permanent existence of aggression/coercion/murder is the primary reason for the 2ndA.
The good people have the right to the means to defend themselves.

I've twisted nothing.
If you believe that individual firearms ownership is sufficient to stop organized aggression, as you have just stated, then that conflicts with your statement that we need a state to stop organized aggression.

Then you further undermined the 2A by saying "The good people have the right to the means to defend themselves". You put qualifiers on "people" that don't exist in the text of the 2nd Amendment. This means you don't believe people have an inherent right to defend themselves. It also means you choose to have the state define "good". Since the state can by definition do this arbitrarily, you are arguing there's no such thing as rights at all.

[acptulsa]

The New Anarchist Man is just as much a fantasy as the New Soviet Man, or any other kind of "new man" required by any other utopian swindle/delusion.
People inclined to aggression/coercion/murder will create the state...

Your vision of Trump the Beneficent is no less a fantasy. You just admitted who it is that creates states. It's a fantasy even just to assume that once you take control of it away from these people, they won't try to take it back.

A beneficent state is just as much a fantasy, just as much a utopian swindle that people delude themselves over.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." - Thomas Jefferson

[TheTexan]

I've twisted nothing.
If you believe that individual firearms ownership is sufficient to stop organized aggression, as you have just stated, then that conflicts with your statement that we need a state to stop organized aggression.

His assertion that an "organized group capable of resisting" would be needed to counter organized aggression, seems pretty reasonable to me.

The 2nd amendment is actually pretty useless (as we have seen) without some kind of way or organizing the people who are exercising that right.

Then you further undermined the 2A by saying "The good people have the right to the means to defend themselves". You put qualifiers on "people" that don't exist in the text of the 2nd Amendment. This means you don't believe people have an inherent right to defend themselves. It also means you choose to have the state define "good". Since the state can by definition do this arbitrarily, you are arguing there's no such thing as rights at all.

I think you're reading into stuff that's not there, as a result of SSDS (Swordsmyth Derangement Syndrome; bursts of temporary insanity as a result of a severe hatred of SS)

[acptulsa]

People who come to a forum every morning and launch a Two Minutes Hate for an hour deserve, and apparently want, their equal and opposite reaction.

[Swordsmyth]

I've twisted nothing.
If you believe that individual firearms ownership is sufficient to stop organized aggression, as you have just stated, then that conflicts with your statement that we need a state to stop organized aggression.

Then you further undermined the 2A by saying "The good people have the right to the means to defend themselves". You put qualifiers on "people" that don't exist in the text of the 2nd Amendment. This means you don't believe people have an inherent right to defend themselves. It also means you choose to have the state define "good". Since the state can by definition do this arbitrarily, you are arguing there's no such thing as rights at all.

Don't be ludicrous.
Individuals have a right to defend themselves to the best of their ability, but their ability will not be equal to organized criminals/tyrants, organized resistance is required and it takes a large group to provide it.
That's why the 2ndA not only secures an individual right, but calls for a well organized militia, and why the founders (who understood liberty, human nature, and history far better than you are capable of) had law enforcement and kept a professional military in spite of some believing that a part time (and government organized and controlled) militia would be sufficient.
Not a single one of them thought random disconnected individuals could keep the savage natives or the British from killing or enslaving them all.

And just stop with the stupid nitpicking, the bad people will be armed and need no right to secure their ability to be so.
And if people are bad enough they should be locked up during which time they will not have a right to arms, or locked up for life without arms, or executed in a negation of all their rights.
It's obvious nobody was saying the state should identify people not committing crimes as "good" or "not good" and withhold rights from the disfavored.
We are discussing bad tyrannical criminals versus honest good citizens.

Making up this kind of strawman does nothing to convince anyone to listen to you, in fact it helps get them to ignore you completely so I wish you would keep it up.