Quote:
You probably labor under the assumption that “anarchy” is synonymous with “mayhem,” or at least “disorder.” You are not alone. Open Microsoft Word, type “mayhem,” highlight it, and right-click. Among the recommended synonyms is, alas, “anarchy.” So even Bill Gates (by proxy) is misled. The truth is that nothing could be further from the truth. Consider what we anarchists have to say about anarchy:
First, we mean a lack of government. Maybe not a total absence of it, but remember that government is people just like you who have to their advantage the legal prerogative to use lethal force to get what they want. Government is little more than that. I would say different if our government abided by the intentions of the founders, who sought to limit government and preserve liberty. But the founding fathers were right: You just can’t give people governmental power without them wanting to expand it. Government is inherently grasping because people are inherently grasping.
Second, we separate “libertarian” from “libertine.” Many of the founders stated that the American experiment was suited only to a moral people. In other words, you can believe the trite maxim, “with freedom comes responsibility.” Libertines are the ones who want drugs legalized so they can get high. Libertarians (anarchists are a subset of libertarians—not the other way around) want drugs legalized because (a) government banning something people want to do results in unintended negative consequences, such as my responsibility as a banker to report you if you make too big a cash withdrawal or deposit; (b) with legalization would likely come weaker forms of most drugs, just as beer and wine outsell hard liquor; (c) once the government can dictate what you put into your body, for whatever reason, they can use this foot in the door to dictate anything else you do with your body or possessions. There are mountains of reasons not to let the government take away your liberty. I don’t have to list the reasons that liberty brings moral responsibility. Thoughtful libertarians and anarchists have considered the issues, and decided we’re better off without forcible nannying.
Third, people, allowed to decide for themselves, drive everything that is good and smart in human progress. Radical environmentalists, who strive to use the power of government to drive human technological progress backward, would better serve their own goals by allowing us to get rich doing economic stuff. Every country that attains a minimum standard of wealth sees its environment get cleaner. Likewise, once attaining wealth, the country’s birth rate drops precipitously. You want fewer people, and a cleaner environment? Get the #$# out of the way, and let people develop the world. In 100 years, there would be fewer people doing more with less and living healthier and longer lives while treading ever more lightly on the planet or earth mother or whatever the Wiccans call it this year.
Fourth, the socialists will see their expressed goals achieved when people are allowed to do their own thing. Note that America’s “poor” own VCRs (74%) at probably the same rate as the middle class in Europe. And we need not mention the other continents’ rates of VCR ownership—I haven’t looked it up, but I’m betting they’re far behind. VCR ownership is one arbitrary but suggestive datum that sheds light on the extent to which basic food, clothing, and shelter needs are being met. Free economies mean everybody does better, period. See the Heritage Foundation’s website to compare standard of living to economic freedom; the correlation coefficient, though I haven’t computed it, would approach 1 (on a scale of –1 to 0 to 1), meaning individual well-being is almost perfectly predictable based on market freedom and property rights. I could go on endlessly, but the point is made. Anarchy, at least relative anarchy (somebody needs to enforce contracts and property rights; better the local sheriff than the feds, though), is not synonymous with mayhem. Thoughtful anarchists associate the term with peace, prosperity, and the ultimate in human dignity: self determination. For everybody from the fundamentalist Moslem to the atheist, there are no more universally agreed-upon, nor noble, goals.
