journal . Ben Sommer

What is an anarchist’s definition of freedom? What to do when anarchists disagree?

Freedom? Freedom from coercion, violence as a general rule in person and property. We can all agree that murderers are bad, right? Thieves, vandals are bad. People breaking their contracts. Hatfields and McCoys shouldn't conduct private warfare. Yes, yes, and yes, right?

So what about the state? It kills, coerces, steals, destroys contracts, and conducts mass murder in war. But there are always myriad excuses, mostly based on the exploitation of fear in the populace.

Its not as radical a concept as it may seem. A principled libertarian wants the state held to the same moral standards as individuals. No violence. "But what!!!? How could the state continue functioning??" Indeed.

Actually, disagreement is never a problem for radical libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. If we understand each other correctly, our only point of agreement need be that the state is evil. That is our guidepost and informs all the particulars in the areas of theory and policy in which we must do intellectual battle with statists, whether left, right or center.

The most potent and as-yet unchallenged criticism of anarchism or radical libertarianism is definetly nationalism and the issue of law and order. The average American is very sympathetic to radically libertarian ideas, even if his instincts in this regard have atrophied over the last few generations. But he has real trouble getting over his religious allegiance to the flag, and his belief that policemen and soldiers and not communities are what keeps the criminals at bay. Hans Herman Hoppe wrote a book I've been meaning to get called 'The myth of national security'. He's one of the only writers tackling this very tough topic.

Sometimes this can all seem like theory and masturbation and no action. Economist Lew Rockwell has great things to say about that. He makes a strong case that a sound foundation of theory and intellectual background are essential for a new movement.

Whenever talking to someone (which is most everyone) who is mentally unable to detach himself from the state, I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's words in a bitter letter to his loyalist son, "You see everything through government eyes". Here's a question: can you conceive of a society without a state, one where there is no government people need representation or participation in? Of course, there is a place for pragmatism for a radical libertarian. Any step in the right direction is good, but one cannot accept a "diversion" or "reengineering" of state policies or institutions under the false guise of increasing liberty. Many examples come to mind, the most recent of which is President Bush's SS "privitization" - basically a whole new quasi-fascist forced savings program cloaked in libertarian rhetoric, that would do nothing to curtail or "privitize" that giant welfare program. Funny how America's rulers cloak their more evil intentions in the most libertarian language, isn't it?

When we think of anarchy, we usually think of the Hobbesian notion that the state is all that keeps at bay Man's natural condition of war, deprivation and animal savagery. Subtly we've all been infected with this ages-old propaganda, perpretrated by those with a plain incentive for us to be so infected - that is, those holding power of the state. That's not conspiracy talk (though it is a conspiracy), just basic economic analysis.

Speaking of that - private economic exchanges (whether between shopper and grocer, or between multibillion dollar corporations), private economic contracts (employment, insurance, consumer/producer), common laws such as traffic rules, and pricing on everything from labor to commodities to rates of interest to the medium and value of money itself can, have, and do occur naturally through the help of a sort of magical 'invisible hand' without any help (or more likely) hindrance from the state. Consult history to find that all these things, as well as their framework - the free market - precede the state.

Happily, these spontaneous types of human cooperation tend to dull the natural inclinations of the state to kill, terrorize and rob its own subjects or those of another state. One can gauge the propensity of a state to make war by the freeness of its trade with other states.

NPR and PBS were (briefly) on the chopping block recently. Too bad they were save at the last minute. Here is a general response to friends who get their undies all in a twist every time this comes up, accompanied by an exposition of principled anti-statism:

Its a long and tricky task to unpack an anti-state philosophy. Some people argue against the state on utilitarian or technical legal grounds. Outfits like the Cato Institute do this. They rightly say that nearly all government policies have (intended and unintended) negative consequences. They "don't work", so they should be curtailed. Of course, whether they work or not is in the eye of the beholder, but that's another story. Point is, there's no moral dimension to this approach. The only test is a policy's efficacy and utility. NPR/PBS probably have strong utility, for a lot of people.

Arguing against a state policy on legal or constitutional grounds seems to me like a meek and unmanly pleading - an oppressed subject complaining to his ruler that the he is transgressing his own laws. Well, who makes the laws? Yes a constitution is supposed to be the "law by which lawmakers govern", but for me the US constitution has been a lost cause for a long time. NPR/PBS, to a constitution purist, certainly aren't legitimate - but then most of government isn't. But like I said, its a lost cause. Only a morally insecure libertarian would still protest unconstitutional laws in the face of this.

Then there's morality. What does the state do? How does the state operate? What is right and wrong to you? Once you discover what the state does and how it operates, how does that match against your notions of right and wrong? Here's what I think:

George Washington said "Government is not reason or persuasion, government is force". That's basically all the state has - violence and threats of violence. No one volunteers their taxes, its forced out of them. No one volunteers to be regulated, they're threatened to comply. To most people, this is fine. That's what the state is for, right? To me its simple - why is it immoral for individuals to kill, terrorize and rob but just fine for the state? Shall we talk about deteriorating moral values? I think most of them stem from people's addiction to the state, and from approving of the immoral way it does things.

Obviously, the most horrible thing the state does is war. The "Save NPR" brigade are quite right that making an issue out of $100M for the CPB in the context of the war and a $2.5T federal budget is like pointing out the speck in someone else's eye while ignoring the log in your own. That's what congress is doing now. Those criminals love war, welfare, subsidy, protectionism, debt and inflation. So why the heck are they picking on PBS?

But that's not what I'm doing. I say the state is immoral, whatever the context. And the context of these ridiculous petitions is NPR/PBS funding - and so I'll speak my mind on this particular subject. But if anyone wants to write 100 petitions against war or taxation, I'll sign every one. In fact, considering how unimportant NPR/PBS is compared to the death and impoverishment of war and taxes, why don't we leave off these little petitions and get to something bigger?