No Coercion
18Jan/1111

Why not just become an anarchist?

This question is directed to a certain, possibly large, group of people: those who, when debating anarchism, concede that it is true that social arrangements and interactions should be purely voluntary, that it is fundamentally unjust to initiate force against others (even in the name of funding for security and dispute resolution), but who then insist that they cannot subscribe to anarchism/voluntaryism because of their reservations about how it would play out on a practical level in the real world.

This is a position I don't understand. Isn't it somewhat akin to someone in the days of chattel slavery claiming that they surely see the injustice of slavery but simply can't become an abolitionist and agitate for the abolition of slavery because they can't see how society would work without it?

So what if you don't know how adjudication or immigration or crime control or defense against foreign states would be handled in a stateless society? So what if you can't quite see how voluntary mechanisms would evolve to produce safe food and drugs, efficient roads, and a well-educated population? Neither can I! Who cares? If you recognize something to be wrong, then for the love of all that's decent and sacred, declare your utter opposition to it, and call for it's elimination!

Hey, a stateless society won't emerge overnight, anyway, so why the reluctance to embrace the philosophy? Why not just become an anarchist and advocate for the abolition of the state on principle while at the same time taking part in the vibrant and diverse conversations about the ways in which a voluntary society might deal with things currently done by the state? You could even try coming up with a plan for a business or community organization that would take on such tasks in place of the state.

The more individuals who declare their commitment to peaceful, voluntary social relations and act to further that cause, the more people will be exposed to the ideas and the more society will begin to shift in that direction, leading to a steady and organically evolving transition to that state of affairs that you already agree is more just and moral than statism. So all you statists and minarchists out there who agree with the moral case for anarchy, for the love of Rothbard, stop worrying about exactly how things will work, and loudly and proudly declare yourself an anarchist!

[Update: To clear up a potential source of confusion, I'm not saying you ought to use the "anarchist" term in particular. I'm just saying you should (if you agree with the moral argument for a voluntary society) commit to the philosophy and argue for it, regardless of whether you call yourself anarchist, market anarchist, anarchocapitalist, libertarian, voluntaryist, autarchist, or whatever.]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

6Jan/116

Creationism in Kentucky government schools

It seems there's a goober in Kentucky sponsoring a bill to sneak Creationism into government school science classes.

This is just another example of how government schools (besides being based on theft and violence) are really terrible. The problem on display here is that they can't please everyone who 'helps' pay for them. Some tax payers are morons who want their taxes to pay for Creationism to be taught in science classes, and other tax payers (the rest of us) want Creationism left in comparative religion classes or other classes based on the study of fantasy.

Of course, both groups, as tax payers, have a legitimate beef (particularly since the tax payers pay under threat of violence rather than as the result of a voluntary contract). The problem is fundamentally insoluble in the context of government schools (though the constitutional separation of church and state does provide a sometimes useful tool). The only solution is the abolition of government schools (and the taxes associated with them), thus allowing individuals to choose educational options for their children that they deem appropriate and that they are paying for themselves (or through whatever voluntary assistance may emerge). In other words, the solution is to implement the libertarian (a.k.a. voluntaryist, a.k.a. market anarchist) ethic: do not aggress against others or their justly-acquired property.

And just to head off that tired refrain about how such a peaceful, free-market system would inevitably result in some kids (those who end up with an anti-evolution curriculum) being massively deficient in science education, I'll just say, yep, that's life. Other people make lots of choices for their kids that you probably don't agree with--it doesn't make theft and violence okay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!