Many left-anarchists are fairly civilized. But many others are not. An ex-vegan was going to give an anti-vegetarianism speech at an anarchist book fair in San Francisco, and these criminals threw cayenne-laced pies at her. What completely indefensible behavior. These people might want to bring down state power, but I don’t know that we’d be better off being ruled by them than the current power elite.
One reason “anarchism” — the rejection of the state or, more generally, the rejection of authority—is not enough can be seen in the way left-anarchists often violate private property or even commit acts of personal violence against political enemies. Property rights and the non-aggression axiom are key. Anarchism is best seen as the logical consequence of libertarianism, grounded in property and self-ownership, rather than being an end in itself. All radical libertarians should be anarchists. But not all anarchists are truly libertarians.
Of course, even private criminality would be infinitely more tolerable than the state, and certainly this is the case in a relatively civilized culture that can handle some deviants here and there, as ours can. Indeed, the fact that America is relatively civil despite the state doing everything to undermine civil society—through war, drug prohibition, gun control, welfare, public schools, etc.—demonstrates the workability of anarchy. But culture must come first to maintain any free or even civilized society. And on the question of culture, many left-anarchists are on the wrong side. They would reduce us to tribalism, primitivism and chaos. By the way, I am not talking about the mutualists or pro-market, pro-law left-anarchists. I’m not talking about Tuckerites or followers of Proudhon. These people all have views on social order and economics than differ from mine, but at least they believe in society and tend to oppose violence against the innocent. I am talking about the social anarchists even to the “left” of these folks, who have no love of the market, no respect for property at all, no compunctions about watching the world burn.
Perhaps in a sense they are the true “anarchists”—opposed to all order, hierarchy and law, not just statism—whereas the strictly anti-statist meaning of anarchism is the actual misnomer. But on the other hand, how can one be against order and hierarchy altogether? Even to be philosophically opposed to hierarchy puts hierarchy below disorder, thus bolstering a hierarchy of ideas. The extremist anarchists oppose all social conventions and norms, and even language and technology. You can read about it on their websites. This kind of anarchism is incoherent and contradictory, even if it is more true to the etymology of the word “anarchism.” But anarcho-libertarianism, anchored in private property rights and non-aggression, is far more achievable, humane and civilized, and eschews the type of aggression we often see left-anarchists personally involved in.
So let me get this straight, a stateless society could succeed as long as everybody subscribes to your personal views on property rights and non-aggression? How have you not simply replaced the repression of the state with your own new set of laws determined by you alone?
Isn’t that what a state is? The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property?
How is anarcho-libertarianism more achievable then any other anarchism? Without the state to stop them, won’t people resort to “might makes right”, whether they are on the right or left?
libertarianism != anarchism
“Isn’t that what a state is? The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property?”
No. A state is a monopoly of violence that is accepted as legitimate by most people living under it. Social norms are necessary for civilization. A state is not. For a state to exist, it must be a monopoly, either engaged in a legitimate function while prohibiting others from engaging in it (which would in itself be illegitimate, since all legitimate activity should be allowed, with no coercive barriers to entry), or it is barring others from engaging in illegitimate behavior which itself practices. A monopoly on violence is inherently criminal. Its acceptance by the masses is what we anarchists would like to see gone. We still want the masses to accept certain moral norms — the moral prohibition of murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, assault, etc. — but we want the masses to believe that these norms should not and need not be enforced through a socialist and inherently criminal monopoly. Once that particular belief becomes mainstream enough, the state shall cease to exist but law and law enforcement would remain.
I don’t disagree with your description of the modern state as a monopoly on violence but am still unclear how you intend to replace it. My statement of the state as “The formalized collective will of a populace in an attempt to control violence and protect property” was certainly more of a expression of Locke’s ideal then the reality of the modern state, which is mostly based on repression rather then liberation.
However, I am still unclear how you intend run a stateless society. Do you think that morality and a sense of civic pride alone will keep people from murdering and stealing? Without a state, who performs law enforcement?
However, I am still unclear how you intend run a stateless society. Do you think that morality and a sense of civic pride alone will keep people from murdering and stealing? Without a state, who performs law enforcement?
In short, those who do not want to be victimized by criminals. And who keeps this law enforcement under control? Those who do not want to be victimized by someone else’s law enforcement.
What is the reason law enforcement would need to be a monopoly?
Mr. Roper, I would encourage you to read the excellent paper by Gil Guillory and Pat Tinsley on a related topic, available at Libertarian Papers here: http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Most of the reason law is followed now is cultural, not structural. And most law enforcement is probably done privately. It is not that difficult to imagine the market and community norms taking over law enforcement entirely.