But What About ... ?

Thursday, 02 July 2009 12:31

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 looney. 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 http://www.larkenrose.com < Prev   Next >