Anarchy is workable, Statism is not
May 9, 2008 – 6:31 pm by JohnAn entire month ago, Francois Tremblay wrote a blag post, Statism is Utopian that I blagged about here. In the comments, I told him I thought he was incorrect in his assertion that an unworkable situation can proceed from a workable situation but that a workable situation cannot proceed from an unworkable one. He was referring to the Statist argument that anarchy is unworkable, which is why a state needs to be implemented to make society workable. He provided an analogy, that a good carpenter can create a blunder but a poor carpenter can’t create a masterpiece. It’s probably just better if you read his post.
In the last comment, he asked me if I could elaborate on my doubt or objection to that claim. I’ve been meaning to for the last three or four weeks, and I finally will now. Though I don’t know how well I’ll do. I don’t really have much to say. I wrote that I could probably just as easily come up with a different analogy about how a workable situation could proceed from an unworkable one. I get the feeling all this revolves around one’s definition of “workable.”
Statists argue that an anarchist society without legislated law and monopolistic law-enforcement authorities is unworkable, and, therefore, a state needs to be imposed upon the society to make it workable. The unworkability consists of criminals going unpunished, the absence even of a semi-formal system for punishing them, widespread hedonism, the rich dominating the poor with little to no chance of breaking from one’s “caste,” terrible industrial working conditions, terrible schools, and chaos generally reigning in the streets (the all-time favorite cliché of Statists). They argue that to correct these conditions and improve the lot of the people at large, a government must be formed that is the only and final authority on punishing criminals and promoting the general welfare.
Anarchists, to make things brief, pretty much argue the opposite; that under a monopolistic state, with aggressive force (coercion/extortion) legitimately and legally wielded by people who not only suffer no consequences for their aggressions but whose job descriptions mandate that they exercise such aggression, the natural order of human society (peaceful cooperation and voluntary free-market transactions) is systemically disrupted and a less prosperous, less orderly, less enlightened society results.
If anarchy is workable and Statism is not, then anarchists advocate the evolution from an unworkable societal system to a workable one. This implies, contrary to what Francois argued (I think), that we can convert an unworkable situation into a workable one. Does that sound right? Am I correct in describing Statism with the adjective “unworkable”? I mean, we’re still alive and progressing in many ways, though regressing in others; Statism certainly works poorly and most definitely worse than anarchy; I think unworkable, especially in the long run, is an accurate term. When I asserted I could just as easily come up with an everyday analogy for why it’s feasible to go from an unworkable situation to a workable one, I was totally wrong because it’s kind of hard, but maybe I’ll think of a good one in the next couple of days.
4 Responses to “Anarchy is workable, Statism is not”
Touche sir. Touche. You have indeed proven me wrong in a beautiful way. I concede and will make a post to that effect soon.
I do not want to rationalize my defeat at all, but it should be noted that I did not claim that I thought Anarchy was possible. My position is still theoretically coherent.
By Francois Tremblay on May 10, 2008
Ah, I see, good point. If you didn’t claim that anarchy was capable of evolving from a state, then that means you didn’t claim a workable situation would arise from an unworkable one.
I wonder, though, whether anarcho-capitalists should advocate the subversion and shrinking of the State with the goal of helping society progress to a more prosperous and peaceful anarchic condition, or if we should just say, “Anarcho-capitalism would work better,” as a thought exercise and not advocate or hope for its implementation.
It won’t be widespread or even exist anywhere in our grandchildren’s lifetimes, so it isn’t practical to expect to just get rid of governments quickly or soon, but what should we expect or hope for? What do you mean when you say you do not claim that you thought anarchy was possible? You didn’t claim it in that post or you don’t think we can ever get market-anarchism from the remains of a nation-state? I’m typically a little more optimistic than that…
By John on May 10, 2008
Like I said, it is a purely theoretical position.
By Francois Tremblay on May 11, 2008