One of the best things about my political philosophy is that it allows competition. Though I personally am an anarchist, I understand that some people might not want that much freedom. That’s okay! If you would like to live as a socialist or a democrat or syndicalist I certainly can’t tell you otherwise. I do not, however, consent to those systems and don’t want to participate in them.
“How would this crazy world of yours possibly work?” I imagine you asking, because we’ve all been taught that the only place a monopoly is ever a good thing is when it’s a government service. And think about that for a moment if you will. Throughout my public education I was told that monopolies are bad and terrible things in business, and that competition is what drives innovation and ensures fair play. I was ALSO taught that there are some goods and services that are just too important to trust to the free market (more important than food?) so they have to be provided by the monopolistic power of the government.
I got in a lot of trouble in school by pointing that out and further suggesting that my teachers weren’t thinking at all if they could think that was true. It never made sense to me and no explanation they offered could convince me that ALL monopolies aren’t bad and that includes transportation infrastructure, courts, welfare services, security/protection services, food and drug safety, and many others.
That’s what I think is appealing about anarchy as I see it; if you really really want to be ruled, I cannot and should not be able to stop you. Your voluntary bondage conveys no obligation on me to stop you from making a bad decision, just as the actions of anarchists, should they not directly affect you, do not obligate any action on your part. Simply put, if you don’t aggress, there will be nothing to defend.
Here’s a challenge to statists: If you believe so much in a social contract, sign one. Say that you are willing to give up your earnings on a sliding scale that can be redetermined at will to fund operations of an ever-expanding list of public services, and that the authority to which you are pledging your allegiance can change the rules whenever its agents (chosen by you from a predetermined pool of candidates so you can’t say you have no voice, of course) decide they need to.
After all, that’s essentially the system we have here in the US, despite the existence of the constitution as a supposed bulwark against creeping tyranny. Various rationalizations have been provided as to why the power of the government is always expanding but it comes down to this, in the words of one of my personal inspirations, Lysander Spooner:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
In my view, the only way to stop the expansion of political power is to never allow it any to begin with. I’d prefer to start at 0 power and work to keep it there, than to start at 3 or 4 and have to constantly fight a battle you’ve already partway lost. It’s one helluva lot easier to stop the dickheads at the door than to keep an eye on them once they’re inside.
However, if you disagree with me and you think that some people are just too stupid to live for themselves, feel free get a bunch of other people together, sign a contract with them to form a political body, and go from there. What you MAY NOT do is force anyone to sign up. If someone is in desperate straights and they just need to give up their money and autonomy so that someone else can take care of them because they only seem to make bad choices, go right ahead. Side note: you may want an escape clause for folks who want to leave later on, or it might get violent.
I don’t know how a world of competing political systems would look, quite frankly, and if you claim that you do I’m going to have a lot of very hard-to-answer questions so have your notes ready. In short, I don’t think anyone’s that smart, nor able to program a computer that can simulate a system that complicated. That speaks to my final point; no one can know, and thus plan, for all variables in a complex system. It’s the reason economic and climate modeling fails time and again (they’re closely related, as it turns out) and most predictive disciplines are filled with charlatans and other flavors of bullshit artist. I know only that coercion is wrong, and I want to live in as free as world as can be managed. I also know that some people are terrified of true freedom due to the responsibility it implies, and are much happier only getting paid a small percentage of their productive value because they don’t think they can handle life without a paternalistic state making sure they don’t go too far. I’m not here to change those peoples’ minds. I’m here to show the rest of us that they live in a state of anarchy most of the time, and that there is no reason for that not to expand into more areas of life. For now, thanks for taking the time and feel free to discuss!
