American politics has been characterized by the false dichotomy of Republicans vs. Democrats and Liberals vs. Conservatives for decades. This system forces people to choose between “the lesser of two evils” and, in many cases, forces them to support someone with whom they do not agree in order to keep another person out of office. This is not how our founding fathers wished for America to be run and, in fact, George Washington spoke out against political parties directly:
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." (Washington)
If Americans are to take back the reins of government and prevent a new totalitarian state from rising, we must put an end to the two-party system. The most effective method to do so and to ensure that the populace will not be abused by those, who may seek to advance themselves through illegitimate and destructive means, is to abolish the State all together.
The two-party system has wreaked havoc on the lives of Americans nearly since the establishment of our nation, as it had already asserted itself by 1797 (Two-Party). Its current form – Republicans vs Democrats – however, has only really been influential since the time of the American Civil War (Two-Party). As such, the false dichotomy of the duopoly has permeated the public’s view of politics for longer than any individual has lived, let alone could remember! It could full well be argued that (with exception of religion) there is nothing, which possesses more dominating power in the realm of politics, than the two-party system.
This creates a plethora of issues and controversies. But before we demonize the establishment, we should analyze the potential benefits of a binary political structure. Political parties allow individuals of like minds to congregate and “provid[e] the needed organizational muscle to advance policy” (Durante). And by their nature, they also force the individuals to compromise on some issues, and they “provid[e] legitimacy and common ground for those who oppose currently elected leaders” (Durante). A two-party system also makes choosing whom one wishes to support considerably less mentally tasking and more expedient.
But these very advantages, when studied from a more objective and discerning perspective, can be understood to actually play a major role in making a duopoly such a dangerous construction. By organizing partisan groups, the party system can create political deadlocks in which two or more parties face an issue on which neither is willing to compromise or adopt the opposing view. And when compromise is reached, it is often through underhanded policies and “pork barreling” additional clauses into legislation, which only serve to harm the general populace in the long-term. And by streamlining the process through which candidates are selected, the party system provides incentive to ignore the individuals’ policies and to focus primarily on their party affiliations. In his article, “Do We Still Benefit from the Two-Party System”, Chuck Durante also points out other negative implications of this type of political structuring. These include, a party’s potential inability to change to an evolving political atmosphere and thus alienating themselves from their constituents, “fervent minorit[ies]” failing to gain support and limiting the peoples’ choices, and the dilemma faced by someone, who does not align themselves with either party and “has nowhere to go” (Durante).
Arianna Huffington, in her article, “Debating the Two-Party System”, asserts that the two-party system “has not just narrowed our choices, it’s narrowed our thinking.” The pervasive nature of the concept of the party system has been so engendered into our society that it has infiltrated the very zeitgeist of the American populace. A perfect example of this is current state of the 2016 United States Presidential Race. According to a CNN poll taken back in March of 2016, both of the leading candidates from each party have record-breaking negative approval ratings, with both having more than 50% of people viewing them “unfavorably” (Wright). This means that if either is elected, more than half of the population will not approve of their claim to office. And people say democracy isn’t broken! Lysander Spooner, an anarchist from the 1800’s, after providing a wonderfully detailed and logical explanation as to why the U.S. Constitution does not establish a legitimate system of government, provides the perfect response to this in his article, “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority”:
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." (Spooner)
The Constitution has been powerless to prevent the current state of our nation. It has been powerless to stop it from becoming a nation, where people elect candidates only to keep others out of office and not on the merits of the individual. It has been powerless to stop it from becoming a nation, where the cops have already killed 403 people this year (Killed). It has been powerless to stop it from becoming a nation, where cops steal more from American citizens through civil asset forfeiture than burglars and thieves have done through their illicit trade (Armstrong). It has been powerless to stop it from becoming a nation in which the government, itself, poisoned the water of the city of Flint, Michigan through its own negligence (Soave). It has been powerless to stop it from becoming a nation, ruled by an army of elites, unaccountable to anyone but themselves. And it has been powerless to stop it from becoming considered “the greatest threat to world peace” (Bonk). And the level of oppression to which the citizens of the United States are exposed only grows by the day. Surely, such a nation is “unfit to exist”!
If we are to prevent the continued abuse of the civil liberties and the very rights of man, which were recognized by the Founding Fathers, we must not allow this continued oppression of our people. If we are to rise from what could be considered the nadir of our country’s existence, it will not be through the traditional means of change. Was women's liberation achieved through the voting booth? Was the end of racial segregation achieved through a democratic vote? No! They were achieved by a small group of individuals dedicated to their cause so passionately, that they were willing to forsake all else in pursuit of it. If we are to solve the plethora of problems perpetuated by persons, who seek only to advance their own agendas through the means of the power vested in them, we must strip that power from them and remove the artificial hierarchy of the State.
And is not the most rational decision to solve the issues to eliminate the very mechanism by which they are permitted to exist? This is far from reactionary or ridiculous. People have been considering doing away with the State for decades. In his book, “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto”, Murray Rothbard details the structuring of an Anarchist-Capitalist society and how a population could function without the presence of an authoritarian State. Covering almost every possible topic regarding a civilized society, he argues that an Anarcho-Capitalists like the Founding Fathers have weaved “civil and moral liberty, political independence, and the freedom to trade and produce as all part of one unblemished system, what Adam Smith was to call, in the same year that the Declaration of Independence was written, the ‘obvious and simple system of natural liberty.’ (Rothbard)” And in addition to detailing how an entire society could function in the absence of a higher power in less than 450 pages, Rothbard manages to explain why no other system of economic or political structure could be viewed as moral.
Rothbard does so through a very thorough explanation of what he calls “the Nonaggression Axiom”. The Nonaggression Axiom (or as it is often endearingly referred to “the NAP”) is the cornerstone of the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology. Rothbard defines it as a principle which states “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else” (Rothbard). This is may say sound vaguely reminiscent of the “Golden Rule” often taught to children in Sunday Schools and Kindergartens around the country. The only considerable difference, in fact, is that the Anarchists apply this principle to all aspects of every interaction between people or groups of people. In their opinion, no one is excluded from the NAP. They hold all citizens to this axiom, all mayors, all senators, the President, and even the entirety of the institution of government, itself, to this single axiom.
This is precisely the sort of communal integrity, which would eradicate the very issues, which the State has created or has been unable to resolve. This form of mutual respect and recognition of the independence of the individual would set the stage for a new chapter in American history books. It would institute a new level of freedom of the individual and usher in innovations and discoveries in the realms of science and art. It would impact the world’s understanding of religion and theology and bring about a level of tolerance among all people, which has hitherto not been seen. This would be the pinnacle of human achievement and permit us attain levels of success and freedom, one can only imagine in our current statist society. A unilateral adoption of the NAP could very well be the solution to the worst of society’s ails.
Of course, there are those, who deem such a society as impossible. In January of 2014, Forbes magazine published an online article by Harry Binswanger, titled “Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government”. In it, Binswanger argues that the Anarchists’ opposition of force is only against force utilized by the government, and that “[g]overnments are necessary – because we need to be secure from force initiated by criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders” (Binswanger). He also equates the Anarcho-Capitalists’ ideal society to that of modern-day Lebanon, Somalia, and the Taliban. Such arguments are absurd!
As mentioned before, the core philosophy of the Anarchist states that “No men or group of men” (emphasis added) may utilize force or threat of force against another. Binswanger’s claim that Anarchists are only opposed to the use of force by the State is utterly ridiculous and obviously rooted in a misunderstanding of what they actually believe.
Mr. Binswangers’ next claim (that governments are necessary to protect the general populace from others, who wish to do us harm) is equally invalid. In the aforementioned book by Murray Rothbard, there is a simple, elegant, and detailed explanation of a means of establishing a court and policing system to deal with criminals, and an equally wonderful description of means of assuring the safety of individuals from exogenous threats (Rothbard). Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., in his essay, “Why I Am an Anarcho-Capitalist” also explains that reluctance to trust the free market to handle cases of legislation is reasonable:
"It’s understandable, to be sure, that people may not understand how law, which they assume must be provided in top-down fashion, could emerge absent the state, although there is plenty of good historical work demonstrating precisely this. But if government had historically monopolized the production of any good or service, we would hear panicked objections to the privatization of that good or service." (Rockwell) To assert that Anarchists are ignorant of the need for such measures, only further illustrates Mr. Binswanger’s lack of comprehension of the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology.
Additionally, to state that the envisioned society of the Anarchists is akin to that of Lebanon, Somalia, or the Taliban is inane. Lebanon is a stuck in political deadlock and rocked with civil war and violence. Anarchist advocate for the removal politics and recognize all aspects of human rights, as such, a situation similar to that of Lebanon could not occur. To liken an Anarchist society to that of Somalia, again, does injustice to Mr. Binswanger’s competence. Terrorist cells in Somalia have been actively attacked by the United States in the past year (Cooper) and Somalia is in a continual state of political turmoil. An Anarchist society would have a strong incentive to exclude any dangerous individual (including terrorists) from its premises and (like Lebanon) it doesn’t have a political system to be in turmoil in the first place. Lastly, to compare anarchy to the Taliban is ridiculous. The Taliban is a political entity, and as such there is no room for them in an anarchist society.
There are also those, who will claim that the adoption of an Anarchist society is far too “radical” and “extreme” to be established immediately or at all. But one has to then ask: Why is it extreme to support the recognition of human rights? Why is it radical to oppose the “greatest threat to world peace” (Bonk)? Why are there those, who not support the cause that advocates for the greatest level of freedom of the individual? What possible rationale could there be to say that any member of humanity deserves to be under the boot of an authoritarian state? I challenge those, who oppose Anarchy, to develop a coherent and reasonable response as to why anyone could be denied the right to freedom from the use of violence or the threat of violence against him, as advocated by Anarcho-Capitalists.
The founding fathers recognized that governments do not always represent the people. And in the Declaration of Independence, they prescribed the conditions on which opposition to an oppressive government should be built, specifically, that it should be done, whenever the said government impedes on the rights of man:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (US 1776)
Continuing on the same reasoning, Henry David Thoreau took the thoughts of the founders of America and, in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, he pondered the relationship between the State and the rights of man:
"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen." (Thoreau)
And it is such a conclusion, which we must support. As Thoreau, we must question whether the current state of the State need be the final ideal in the realm of politics. We should consider the possibility that, perhaps, Thoreau’s “more perfect and glorious State” is rather no State at all.
Peace to All,
LogicalFallacies
Works Cited
Armstrong, Martin. "Police Civil Asset Forfeitures Exceed All Burglaries in 2014." ArmstrongEconomics.com. ArmstrongEconomics, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 8 May 2016.
Binswanger, Harry. "Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 24 Jan. 2014. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Bonk, Lawrence. "Here Is the Country That Was Named the Biggest Threat to World Peace." IJReview.com. IJReview.com, 22 Mar. 2015. Web. 8 May 2016.
Cooper, Helene. "U.S. Strikes in Somalia Kill 150 Shabab Fighters." NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 7 Mar. 2016. Web. 8 May 2016.
Durante, Chuck. "77 24 Do We Still Benefit from the Two-party System?" DelawareOnline.com. DelawareOnline, 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Huffington, Arianna. "Debating the Two-Party System." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Feb. 2011. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
"Killed By Police - 2016." Killed By Police - 2016. N.p., 08 May 2016. Web. 08 May 2016.
Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. "Why I Am an Anarcho-Capitalist." Mises Institute. Mises Institute, 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Rothbard, Murray N., and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. 2nd ed. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Inst., 2006. Print.
Soave, Robby. "The Government Poisoned Flint's Water-So Stop Blaming Everyone Else." Reason.com. Reason.com, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 08 May 2016.
Spooner, Lysander. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. N.p.: n.p., 1967. Libertarianism.org. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
"Two-Party System." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
Washington, George. "A Quote by George Washington." Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 May 2016. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/462873-however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends.
Wright, David. "Poll: Trump, Clinton Score Historic Unfavorable Ratings." CNN. Cable News Network, 22 Mar. 2016. Web. 08 May 2016.