| |
But What About ... ?
When I raise the idea of abandoning the "authority" myth entirely, and
understanding that each of us owns himself, I invariably get responses
asking how this or that would be handled without "government," how disputes
might be resolved peacefully, and how we would deal with all the "gray
areas" in life, where people have fundamental disagreements about certain
things.
And those are perfectly rational questions ... sometimes. But I immediately
wonder WHY the person would ask such questions, and I see two very different
possibilities: 1) They are reserving the right to regress back to the belief
in "authority," if I can't assure them that everything will be okay without
it, or 2) They have given up the "authority" superstition for good, and are
just genuinely curious about how society is likely to function without it.
The latter is reasonable. The former is loony.
I compare it to the belief in Santa Claus. Someone who had just given up
such a belief could rationally ask, "But how will Christmas work without
Santa?" However, whatever the answer was, it would NOT be rational to then
respond with, "Well, I don't think that will work, so we'd better stick with
the Santa plan." Santa Claus isn't real. He's not an option. Either
Christmas will work without him, or Christmas won't work. "But what if some
good kids don't get presents? What if some bad kids get lots of presents?
What if poor folks can't afford to get their kids presents? What if, what
if, what if?" Bad things might happen. Deal with it. Santa isn't going to
magically appear because the world might be unfair without him.
Likewise, it is completely irrational to revert back to the
self-contradictory delusion of "government," once someone understands the
truth, even if a stateless society sounds scary or unpredictable. The right
of one person to rule another (a.k.a. "authority") does not and cannot
exist, whether society "works" without it or not. Whatever scary scenario
you can image, whatever problems you think might occur, that doesn't change
reality. Choosing to be delusional because facing reality scares you is
insane.
Rational people can and will disagree on all sorts of things, including
treatment of animals, pollution, owning land, parental rights, environmental
issues, abortion, and so on. The trouble is, people are accustomed to viewed
things from an authoritarian mindset, with the question always being about
how "the law" and "government" should deal with such issues globally and
forcibly. As a result, admitting the obvious truth--that no one knows how
every dispute will be settled--sounds like no solution at all to most
people. And that's because there IS no magic solution, with or without
"government," that will always make the good guys win and justice be served.
And so, when people ask me things like, "Under your system, how will ... ,"
I respond with, "I'm not proposing a system, but what would YOU do about
it?" This usually baffles people, because they're not at all accustomed to
thinking of THEMSELVES as the ones who would have to decide what to do, and
the ones who would have to do it. They're used to imagining a giant,
all-powerful state making things right (or rather, saying it will make
things right, and then making things horribly wrong).
As I've said before, anarchism is not a complete philosophy, nor does it
pretend to offer answers to everything. In fact, it is the opposite. It is
the assertion that there is one particular solution ("authority") that
should NOT be in the equation. And that's all it is. If you want to
understand what it means to be an anarchist, picture this: A certain doctor
has an odd habit of using a baseball bat to bash the knees of everyone who
walks into his office. The anarchist is the guy who says, "You shouldn't do
that." The anarchist doesn't claim to be able to cure all health problems.
He doesn't want to be the new doctor. He doesn't claim to know everything,
and can't tell the future. All he does is point out that bashing everyone in
the knee is a bad idea.
The concept of "government" is self-contradictory, delusional, and
horrendously destructive. It goes directly against both free will and
individual rights. In addition, the cult-like belief in "government" has
been the catalyst for the vast majority of injustice, suffering, oppression
and murder in the world. The anarchist recognizes this, and says, "Stop
believing in government."
Does that then oblige the anarchist to solve all the problems of the world?
No. Does it imply he has to know everything, and be able to explain
everything and solve every problem and dispute? No. Does it mean he must
dictate anything to anyone, or propose some grand "solution" to replace the
"authority" myth? No. Does it obligate him to describe a world where nothing
ever goes wrong and injustice never occurs? No.
The trouble is, people are so accustomed to hearing the promises of
megalomaniacs, who offer centralized "solutions" via top-down, micromanaged
authoritarian programs, that it's the only thing a lot of people can even
contemplate. By definition, the anarchist doesn't have a global,
authoritarian solution to be imposed upon society. (He wouldn't be an
anarchist if he did.) Instead, he merely points out that ONE particular type
of "solution"--solution via "authority"--is insane, inherently immoral, and
destined to fail horribly.
So when people ask how this or that will work "under anarchy," I guess I
could make some predictions, or could offer some suggestions, but ultimately
the only truthful answer I can give-- the only truthful answer anyone can
give--is, "How the hell should I know?"
But that's not what people want to hear. They've been spoon-fed centralized
"solutions" for so long that, even though such solutions never actually
work, they make people feel comfortable. In short, people want to think that
someone ELSE is taking care of everything, so they don't have to take on the
responsibility of learning the facts, understanding the truth, and taking
action on anything themselves. And that's why the concept of "anarchy"--a
society without a giant nanny running the world--scares them to death.
They'd rather be told lies, and have a security blanket that suffocates
them, than face the uncertainties of reality. The fact that their savior and
protector, "government," has murdered more people, stolen more property,
attacked, harassed, terrorized, tortured and oppressed more people
throughout history than any private band of crooks and thieves ever has or
ever could, doesn't seem to dissuade them. They still prefer the empty
"guarantees" of the slave-masters to the unpredictability of freedom.
--Larken Rose |
