quinta-feira, abril 01, 2010

# 40

«(...) anarchism is the gentlest of all political systems. It contemplates no institutionalized coercion. It's the watercourse way, where everything is allowed to rise or fall naturally to its own level. An anarchic system is necessarily one of free-market capitalism. Any services that are needed and wanted by people – like the police or the courts – would be provided by entrepreneurs, who'd do it for a profit.

Look, I'd be happy enough if the state – which is an instrument of pure coercion, even after you tart it up with the trappings of democracy, a constitution, and what-not – were limited to protecting you from coercion and absolutely nothing more. That would imply a police force to protect you from coercion within its bailiwick. A court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force. And some type of military to protect you from outside predators.

Unfortunately, the government today does everything but these functions – and when it does deign to protect, it does so very poorly. The police are increasingly ineffective at protecting you; they seem to specialize in enforcing arbitrary laws. The courts? They apply arbitrary laws, and you need to be wealthy to use them – although you're likely to be impoverished by the time you get out of them. And the military hardly defends the country anymore – it's all over the world creating enemies, generally, of the most backward foreigners.

(...)

Look at the etymology. It comes from the Greek anarchos, meaning "having no ruler," an-, not, and archos, ruler. Definition B has come into popular use, but that doesn't make it right.

"Anarchy" is a word that's been stolen and corrupted by the collectivists – like "liberal," It used to be that a liberal was someone who believed in both social and economic freedom. Now a liberal is no better than a muddle-headed thief – someone who's liberal only with other people's money.

I refuse to let the bad guys control the intellectual battlefield by expropriating and ruining good words.

In any event, there's no conflict whatsoever between anarchy and the rule of law, since there are private forms of law and governance. That's what Common Law is all about. So the correct definition is a combination of A and C.

But I never said a truly free, anarchic society would be a utopia; it would simply be a society that emphasizes personal responsibility and doesn't have any organized institutions of coercion. Perfect harmony is not an option for imperfect human beings. Social order, however, is possible without the state. In fact, the state is so dangerous because it necessarily draws the sociopaths – who like coercion – to itself.

What holds society together is not a bunch of strict laws and a brutal police force – it's basically peer pressure, moral suasion, and social opprobrium. Look at a restaurant. The bills get paid not because anybody is afraid of the police, but for the three reasons I just mentioned.

(...)

We can probably agree that it's wrong for me to point a gun at you and take all your money. Some people might feel sorry for me if I did that to buy medicine for my dying mother, but it's still a crime, because it violates your human rights. And it's still a crime if I ask someone else to do the same thing for me – and still a crime if a whole bunch of people vote to ask someone with a spiffy uniform and a badge to do the same thing.

It wouldn't matter any more if a group of people calling themselves Congress went through some rituals that involved a leader putting some ink on some paper and said a violation of your rights was now "legal" than if a witch-doctor told a tribe's warriors that it was okay to take slaves and sacrifice them to the gods. Laws are just a "civilized" man's taboos.

(...)

imagine that the Quebecois decided unanimously that they really didn't want to be part of Canada anymore but wanted to be an independent, French-speaking country. So they peacefully vote and take their marbles to play their own game. In doing so, they don't violate anyone's rights, so there is no moral way the government of Canada can stop them. They could use force, but that would violate the rights of the Quebecois, who would not be hurting anyone. And if the Quebecois could do this, so could Disneyworld, or your neighborhood – or you individually.

There's no moral way to prevent peaceful secession – but if a state doesn't prevent secession, it soon disintegrates. People always want to do things differently, and they would if the threat of force from the state didn't stop them. Brute force – although gussied up with myth, propaganda, and red, white, and blue bunting – is what holds the state together. That force is ugly and corrupting.

No matter how benign a state might be, even one that found a way to fund all of its activities without resorting to force, it must still violate the fundamental human right of self-determination in order to preserve its own existence. That's why the state is inherently a criminal organization – it must rely on force. Even the best of them are never based entirely on consent of the governed; there is coercion of the non-consenting minority. And there are always some who do not consent.

Democracy is no solution – it's just 51% bossing the other 49% around. For God's sake, Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy is just mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie.

You and I do not consent to Obamacare, but we're forced to accept it. Of course socialized medicine is totally counterproductive, as we discussed in our conversation on health.

I suppose I can live with the idea of a state, as long as there were about seven billion of them in the world – and everybody had one. That would show that the whole idea of the state is just a scam, where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. But the only people who really benefit are the guys on top.»

Doug Casey, aqui.