Most people think that if we suddenly didn’t have government tomorrow there would be complete chaos and total disorder. That’s probably true. True in the same way that a drug addict goes through extremely painful withdrawals when they are deprived of their fix. I’m not suggesting we need to go “cold turkey” and rid ourselves of the government in a violent revolution. Not at all. But I am saying you should wonder whether the drug you’re addicted to is giving you what it promises.
Many people think that government is the source of structure in society. It represents law and order and without it we would be in a state of disorder and chaos. But is government the source of order? What makes huge numbers of people live together in peace rather than violence?
The assumption is usually that human nature is self-destructive and so government is the institution that saves humans from themselves. As the famous James Madison quote says, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Government protects the little guy and levels the playing field so that everyone has a chance to achieve a good life.
However take a closer look and this logic falls through. If human nature is truly self-destructive and chaotic then it would take extra-human action (angels) in order to save humans from their own nature. Unfortunately, government is entirely made up of humans. Those humans in government have to somehow escape their own human nature in order to create order for society. It’s difficult to give a cogent reason as to why the people in government are not only orderly themselves but are then remarkably able to overcome the disorder of mankind and create order. French philosopher Frédéric Bastiat poignantly asks, “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
So what? So what that the concept that order originates from government fails a basic logic test; what if it’s more complex than that? It probably is. For instance if you think human nature is self-destructive then you must account for the fact that there is structure in society today and, as I just pointed out, it is difficult to explain that with government. However if you think human nature is generally self-structuring and orderly then you must account for the fact that there is plenty of disorder and violent chaos in the world. Neither viewpoint really seems to be comprehensive. But neither one justifies having a government. Businessman Robert Lefevre said, “If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.”
Consider, for a moment, that order and structure is actually an emergent characteristic of human interaction. However, there are still peaceful people and violent people. It would be in the interest of the violent people if everybody thought that a single entity with a monopoly power of violence was necessary in order to have a civil society. Order would still exist because people would still be free enough to interact and follow their interests and order would emerge out of that but it would all be credited to the large “governing” entity. Could it be that the benefits that the entity claims to be providing are actually just byproducts of human nature?
Suppose that order is something that most people realize is good for themselves and everyone else; that they understand without it they would be in danger. Government is currently the monopoly supplier of law enforcement and policing which many people might say is the line that protects us from regressing into an animal-like existence of violence and chaos. If the government is merely an entity that provides the monopoly on a service there’s no reason to think that people wouldn’t want the service if the supplier wasn’t there.
Why do we have clothes and shoes? Because people value clothes and shoes. Take away the supplier of clothes and shoes and people will still want them. Law and order are merely services. Remove the monopoly provider of them and people still desire it. I am not suggesting you remove law and order, I am saying that believing a monopoly provider of law and order is absolutely necessary is archaic. Murray Rothbard bitingly attacks the idea that government is somehow benevolent,
“It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.”
Examples of decentralized emergent order occur in history; you just probably haven’t heard of them. I just finished reading a series of articles about some of the historical examples of anarchy in history. From Iceland and Ireland to ancient civilizations and early American history, societies have lived and flourished without a government to impose law and order on the helpless people.
If you think about your own life and motivations you know that order and peace are good for you. You go about your day using peaceful methods to achieve your ends. What is compelling you to be a peaceful person? You don’t need the government to keep you from turning into a savage animal. You are probably strongly influenced by culture and norms. You hold your own personal beliefs and morals that tell you how to act.
It’s my belief that everybody’s default should be anarchy. You should assume that humans naturally don’t need a government. The burden of proof should be on the state to justify why it should be established. The argument that human nature is disorderly or too chaotic to be civil on its own does not hold up to scrutiny. So look elsewhere for a justification.
“Why anarchy? Because anything less would be uncivilized.” –Jeffery Tucker
