What Is Anarchy?
by Butler Shaffer <mailto:bshaffer@…>
by Butler Shaffer
I have mixed feelings about the use of labels to describe philosophical
views, whether of myself or others. It is difficult to avoid doing so
because our efforts to understand and communicate about the world
necessarily involve the use of words and words are, as Alfred Korzybski
warned us, abstractions that never equate with what they are meant to
describe. His oft-quoted statement that "the map is not the territory"
offers a caveat whose implications for confusion are further compounded
when addressing such abstract topics as political philosophy.
One philosophical abstraction that seems to befuddle most people is
"anarchy." To those challenged by complexity - such as radio talk show
hosts and cable-TV "newscasters" who are convinced that all political
opinions can be confined to the categories of "liberal" and
"conservative" - the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain
forces. Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of
others are routinely conjured up by politicians and the media to
frighten people into an extension of police authority over their lives.
"Disorder" and "lawless confusion" are common dictionary definitions of
That there have been some, calling themselves "anarchists," who have
engaged in violence on behalf of their political ambitions, is not to be
denied. Nor can we overlook the provocateuring occasionally engaged in
by undercover policemen - operating under the guise of "anarchists" - to
justify harsh reprisals against political protests. But to condemn a
philosophic viewpoint because a few wish to corrupt its meaning for
their narrow advantage is no more justifiable than condemning
Christianity because a man murders his family and defends his acts on
the grounds "God told me to do it!"
As long as a president continues to rationalize war against the Iraqi
people as "operation freedom"; as long as the Strategic Air Command
insists that "peace is our profession"; and as long as police
departments advertise that they are there "to serve and protect,"
intelligent minds must be prepared to look behind the superficiality and
imagery of words to discover their deeper meaning. Such is the case with
the word "anarchy."
The late Robert LeFevre made one such effort to transcend the popular
meaning of the word when he declared that "an anarchist is anyone who
believes in less government than you do." But an even better
understanding of the concept can be derived from the Greek origins of
the word (anarkhos) which meant "without a ruler." It is this definition
of the word that members of the political power structure (i.e., your
"rulers") do not want you to consider. Far better that you fear the
hidden monsters and hobgoblins who are just waiting to bring terror and
havoc to your lives should efforts to increase police powers or budgets
Are there murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and arsonists in our world? Of
course there are, and there will always be, and they do not all work for
the state. It is amazing that, with all the powers and money conferred
upon the state to "protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur
with a regularity that seems to have increased with the size of
government! Even the current "mad cow disease" scare is being used, by
the statists, as a reason for more government regulation, an effort that
conveniently ignores the fact that the federal government has been
closely regulating meat production for many decades.
Nor can we ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the
very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale
for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some
quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments
managed to kill - through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices -
some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed
by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been
the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!
Because of the disingenuous manner in which this word has been employed,
I endeavor to be as precise in my use of the term as possible. I employ
the word "anarchy" not as a noun, but as a verb. I envision no utopian
community, no "Galt's Gulch" to which free men and women can repair. I
prefer to think of anarchy as a way in which people deal with one
another in a peaceful, cooperative manner; respectful of the
inviolability of each other's lives and property interests; resorting to
contract and voluntary transactions rather than coercion and
expropriation as a way of functioning in society.
I am often asked if anarchy has ever existed in our world, to which I
answer: almost all of your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression.
How you deal with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in
shopping malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle
processes of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to
statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways or
grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at work in the
same coercive and threatening manner by which the state insists on
dealing with us, our employment would be immediately terminated. We
would soon be without friends were we to demand that they adhere to
specific behavioral standards that we had mandated for their lives.
Should you come over to our home for a visit, you will not be taxed,
searched, required to show a passport or driver's license, fined,
jailed, threatened, handcuffed, or prohibited from leaving. I suspect
that your relationships with your friends are conducted on the same
basis of mutual respect. In short, virtually all of our dealings with
friends and strangers alike are grounded in practices that are peaceful,
voluntary, and devoid of coercion.
A very interesting study of the orderly nature of anarchy is found in
John Phillip Reid's book, Law for the Elephant
. Reid studied numerous diaries and letters written by persons crossing
the overland trail in wagon trains going from St. Joseph, Missouri to
Oregon and California. The institutions we have been conditioned to
equate with "law and order" (e.g., police, prisons, judges, etc.) were
absent along the frontier, and Reid was interested in discovering how
people behaved toward one another in such circumstances. He discovered
that most people respected property and contract rights, and settled
whatever differences they had in a peaceful manner, all of this in spite
of the fact that there were no "authorities" to call in to enforce a
decision. Such traits went so far as to include respect for the property
claims of Indians. The values and integrities that individuals brought
with them were sufficient to keep the wagon trains as peaceful
Having spent many years driving on California freeways, I have observed
an informal order amongst motorists who are complete strangers to one
another. There is a general - albeit not universal - courtesy exhibited
when one driver wishes to make a lane change and, in spite of
noncooperative drivers, a spontaneous order arises from this interplay.
A major reason for the cooperative order lies in the fact that a driving
mistake can result in serious injury or death, and that such
consequences will be felt at once, and by the actor, unlike political
decision-making that shifts the costs to others.
One may answer that freeway driving is regulated by the state, and that
driving habits are not indicative of anarchistic behavior. The same
response can be made concerning our behavior generally (i.e., that
government laws dictate our conduct in all settings). But this
misconceives the causal connections at work. The supervision of our
moment-to-moment activities by the state is too remote to affect our
actions. We are polite to fellow shoppers or our neighbor for reasons
that have nothing to do with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings
with others peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not
from beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly
destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and no
blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police forces will
be able to avert the entropic outcome. Do you now understand the social
meaning of the "Humpty-Dumpty" nursery rhyme?
The study of complexity, or chaos, informs us of patterns of regularity
that lie hidden in our world, but which spontaneously manifest
themselves to generate the order that we like to pretend authorities
have created for us. There is much to discover about the interplay of
unseen forces that work, without conscious direction, to make our lives
more productive and peaceful than even the best-intended autocrat can
accomplish. As the disruptive histories of state planning and regulation
reveal, efforts to impose order by fiat often produce disorder, a
phenomenon whose explanation is to be found in the dynamical nature of
complexity. In the words of Terry Pratchett: "Chaos is found in greatest
abundance wherever order is being sought. Chaos always defeats order
because it is better organized."
"Anarchy" is an expression of social behavior that reflects the
individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue
their particular interests in the unique circumstances in which they
find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained.
Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the
mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems
ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the
practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever
peace and order exists in society.
Political thinking, by contrast, presumes the supremacy of the systems
(i.e., the state) and reduces individuals to the status of resources for
the accomplishment of their ends. Such systems are grounded in the
mass-minded conditioning and behavior that has produced the deadly wars,
economic dislocations, genocides, and police-state oppressions that
comprise the essence of political history.
Men and women need nothing so much right now as to rediscover and
reenergize their own souls. They will never be able to accomplish such
purposes in the dehumanizing and dispirited state systems that insist
upon controlling their lives and property. In the sentiments underlying
anarchistic thinking, men and women may be able to find the
individualized sense of being and self-direction that they long ago
abandoned in marbled halls and citadels.
January 13, 2004
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail <mailto:bshaffer@…> ] teaches at
the Southwestern University School of Law.
Copyright (c) 2004 LewRockwell.com
Butler Shaffer Archives