Does anarchism only work in a perfect world?

It is a common criticism of anarchism that the people need to be ‘better’ in some way for it to work. It is often claimed that all or most individuals must first be some type of ill-defined term such as Perfectly Wise, Rational or Angelic. Without this, it is claimed that society would descend into anarchistic chaos in the most pejorative sense of the term. This is not the case, and for anarchism to be the preferred option to statism, absolutely none of these conditions are required. The only true consideration that has merit is whether or not the imposition of a state improves society’s condition.  

A fair comparison involves comparing apples with apples, meaning that any comparison of anarchism to statism must involve comparing the same people. It makes no sense to claim that the exact same people under one system are violent by nature, but under another system, they are peaceful by nature. Essentially, if people are axe murderers in anarchy, then there is nothing that mystically changes about them when they become citizens under a state. Claiming that anarchism can degenerate into civil war is forgetting that even societies under the rule of a government may also fall into a state of chaos, such as the LA riots of the early 90’s.  

It is commonly argued that without the imposition of an external force such as the government, people would use violent methods to get what they want. At the same time, these same people are supposed to have the sense to vote for peaceful solutions under democracy, which is self-defeating logic. Which one is it? Either the people are violent by nature and will never vote for peaceful solutions under government, or they are peaceful by nature and therefore they don’t need an externally imposed force to remain peaceful. If the people really are violent, then imposing a state will do no good (since the state will just serve as a channel for legimated violence), and if the people are peaceful, a state is not necessary.

Most anarchists do not argue that everything will be perfect under anarchism, and most readily admit that crime will still exist. Bad things will still happen, it’s just that the anarchistic response to them is better than the statist response. The best example of a microcosm of peaceful anarchism that you will find is your own example. Do you use violence on a daily basis as you go shopping or work at your job? Do you hold wage negotiations with your employer with a gun in your hand? Do you or your friends opt for the violent solution over the peaceful one? The state certainly does opt for violence or the threat of it, which is why it is important to delegitimise it as an idea. On the other hand the anarchic solution leaves all individuals free to shape their own destiny and delegitimates channels for the exercise of power over other people.

Restitution and Retaliation

In the property based stateless society, justice is more likely to be based on the idea of restitution rather than punishment for retaliations sake, or punishment for the sake of deterrence (to deter other people from committing that crime, or deter repeat offending).

In the current system, the provision of criminal justice happens in a collective sense. It isn’t a matter between the victim and the alleged wrongdoer, it is treated as a matter between the government (which claims to represent society) and the alleged person. It seems like the victim’s claim to some type of recompensation such as from an insurance company is treated independently of the court case. This leads me to believe that the focus in the current system is weighted too heavily towards punishment for the sake of either retaliation or deterrence.

When the government prosecutes on behalf of the victim, the rights of the individual are nationalised and this notion of a “crime against society” is introduced. With this, the door is left wide open for abuse of the power to dictate who is and who is not a criminal. There’s nothing really stopping the government from outlawing any kind of activity, even if instead of harming an actual person, it merely harms somebody’s sensibilities. This kind of thinking results in ‘crimes’ like drug use/possession/sale (which can only harm the people who choose to take drugs, much like anything else in life that we choose) or the ‘crime’ of operating in a given industry without state sanction/license (which is merely the government helping to entrench established businesses by making it more expensive for smaller and new competitors to enter the market).

I think it’s important to stress that as a general rule, nobody has the right to impose punishments on other people.  Given this, can punishment exist for non-restitution type reasons? Well it can certainly exist, but only where that individual has agreed to such a punishment in advance. An example of this would be a society where the rules are stipulated before potential members join. A prospective member might have to agree to abide by these rules because the inhabitants of the society feel safer in the knowledge that wrongdoers are punished. This is contrasted with the current model for provision of justice, where the government can simply change the rules whenever it wants to without any form of individual consent and people are born into the system somehow implicitly agreeing to be bound by thousands of government rules and regulations.

One example of the difference between market based stateless societies and governments might be the way criminals are punished. Rather than being put into jails where they are intended to just do work that is meaningless and degrades them, their abilities and knowledge might be put to better use by making them work in a field they have skills in, in order to repay the debt they owe. 

So ultimately, the reason the stateless society cares less about punishment for the sake of retaliation is the increased focus on individual property rights. This indicates that the justice system in a stateless society based on property would generally care more about recompensation and preventing the person from reoffending. 

If you do vote, you can’t complain

It doesn’t even matter if you didn’t vote for the person who actually got into power in that election, by voting in that election you are accepting the game of democracy. So whether you win or lose, you’ve already acknowledged that the winner of the election is justified in doing whatever they want to do because supposedly the voters as a collective have given them their “mandate”. 

You might not even share my personal view that politicians are generally warmongers, control freaks, murderers, liars and thieves (who happen to wear suits and call themselves “the state”) – but it is undeniable that whoever gets voted in decides what the government ends up doing for that term. This is a fact that is known to everybody who votes, so there is clearly foreknowledge. Nobody could vote and claim to be unaware of the fact that the person who gets voted in decides what happens.

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” – Lysander Spooner

So don’t tell people that if they don’t vote they can’t complain about what happens, because they’re the ones who have chosen not to play the fool’s game that is democracy. At least by not voting they have not given their approval to the system and the candidates. If there is anyone to be blamed for what happens after the election, surely it is the people who have voted.