
By Ernest Hancock
A Case for Anarchy
That there have been some, calling
themselves "anarchists," who have engaged in violence on behalf
of their political ambitions, is not to be denied. Nor can we
overlook the provocateuring occasionally engaged in by
undercover policemen operating under the guise of "anarchists"
to justify harsh reprisals against political protests. But to
condemn a philosophic viewpoint because a few wish to corrupt
its meaning for their narrow advantage is no more justifiable
than condemning Christianity because a man murders his family
and defends his acts on the grounds "God told me to do it!"
Robert LeFevre is
credited with the additions of many libertarians since the 50’s
and is quoted as having said "an anarchist is anyone who
believes in less government than you do." But an even better
understanding of the concept can be derived from the Greek
origins of the word (anarkhos) which meant "without a
ruler." It is this definition of the word that members of the
political power structure (i.e., your "rulers") do not want you
to consider. Far better that you fear the hidden monsters and
hobgoblins who are just waiting to bring terror and havoc to
your lives should efforts to increase police powers or budgets
fail.
It is amazing
that, with all the powers and money conferred upon the state to
"protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur with a
regularity that seems to have increased with the size of
government!
Those who condemn
anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the
twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill - through
wars, genocides, and other deadly practices - some 200,000,000
men, women, and children. How many people were killed by
anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have
been the deadly "bomb-throwers" of human history!
Almost all of
your daily behavior is an anarchistic expression. How you deal
with your neighbors, coworkers, fellow customers in shopping
malls or grocery stores, is often determined by subtle processes
of negotiation and cooperation. Social pressures, unrelated to
statutory enactments, influence our behavior on crowded freeways
or grocery checkout lines. If we dealt with our colleagues at
work in the same coercive and threatening manner by which the
state insists on dealing with us, our careers would immediately
come to an end. We would soon be without friends were we to
demand that they adhere to specific behavioral standards that we
had mandated for their lives. And we are polite to fellow
shoppers or our neighbor for reasons that have nothing to do
with legal prescripts. What makes our dealings with others
peaceful and respectful comes from within ourselves, not from
beyond. For precisely the same reason, a society can be utterly
destroyed by the corruption of such subjective influences, and
no blizzard of legislative enactments or quadrupling of police
forces will be able to avert the entropic outcome.
The study of
complexity, or chaos, informs us of patterns of regularity that
lie hidden in our world, but which spontaneously manifest
themselves to generate the order that we like to pretend
authorities have created for us. There is much to discover about
the interplay of unseen forces that work, without conscious
direction, to make our lives more productive and peaceful than
even the best-intended autocrat can accomplish. As the
disruptive histories of state planning and regulation reveal,
efforts to impose order by fiat often produce disorder, a
phenomenon whose explanation is to be found in the dynamical
nature of complexity. In the words of Terry Pratchett:
"Chaos is
found in greatest abundance wherever order is being sought.
Chaos always defeats order because it is better organized."
Political
thinking, by contrast, presumes the supremacy of the systems
(i.e., the state) and reduces individuals to the status of
resources for the accomplishment of their ends. Such systems are
grounded in the mass-minded conditioning and behavior that has
produced the deadly wars, economic dislocations, genocides, and
police-state oppressions that comprise the essence of political
history.
[This article is
a heavily edited version of an article by my friend Butler
Shaffer who teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law
near Los Angeles. I have condensed these thoughts to… “Freedom
Good, Government Bad”]
Q: What's the
difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About 6 to 7 years, if you're paying attention !!
Ernest Hancock can be heard
weeknights on KFNX 1100am's "Declare Your Independence with
Ernest Hancock" from 6 to 8 p.m. Ernest can be reached at
602-717-5900, http://ernesthancock.com
and ernesthancock@cox.net.