Introduction
the United states has entered quite a unique state of political and civil unrest within the last 10 years. Starting with the election of president Obama and the market crash in 2008, distrust in the government has only expanded in the last decade. Increased polarization in political parties and the exasperation of this issue through social media has heightened the political and social tension within the U.S. As this issue progresses, it is important to look at potential outcomes and solutions to the problem. One interesting view points to Anarchism, a form of society in which there is no state and everyone shares things equally. In a lecture by Dr. Per Bylund, an advocate for anarchist society, Dr. Bylund argues for the viability of an anarchist and anarcho-capitalist society in today’s world. However, the ability for this type of society to exist diminishes rapidly without a painfully hopeful and optimistic view of the human race. Anarchy offers unlimited freedom and unlimited opportunity, whilst also allowing for unlimited chaos and unlimited savagrey. Ultimately, anarchy is a recipe for disaster, and the possibility of an anarchist society to thrive is extremely slim.
Dr. Bylund’s Bias
In his lecture, Dr. Bylund starts by addressing the dictionary definition of anarchy. The dictionary defines anarchy as, “a state of disorder due to the absence or nonrecognition of authority or other controlling systems.” Dr. Bylund claims that this definition of anarchy is propaganda, due to the fact that there can be order without a central power residing over a nation. He states that there is a natural order to society, one that people abide by, that is not written in laws or enforced through any means. This can be as simple as saying please and thank you, or walking on the right side of the sidewalk. This unspoken order is the foundation by which Dr. Bylund’s argument for anarcho-capitalism originates. He claims that the precursor to order is freedom, and that without freedom there can be no true order. Dr. Bylund continues by discussing the different ideations of anarchism and how they relate. Many of the different types of anarchy reside on similar principles, including the idea of communal respect for one another, absence of any social hierarchy, and the age-old idea that sharing is caring. Finally, Dr. Bylund discusses the differences between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. One of the most interesting ideas behind anarcho-capitalism is that everything is privately owned; everything from police forces, judicial systems, roads, defense, and more can be owned by an individual, creating complex market systems and free enterprise without the strict regulations from a central governing body. This fosters competition in environments that currently do not have any sort of competitors, which was a unique aspect of this theoretical society.
Viability
The practicality of an anarchist society in today’s world is far from achievable. As good as it sounds to have no social hierarchies or governing body, it is simply not in human nature to share without reward. Since ancient times, mankind has strived to gain power and responsibility over resources and other people. The principle that anarchy relies upon is communal respect for one another and one another’s property. The ability for more than just a small group of people to be able to share resources and live equally together is nearly impossible. Another issue with anarchy is that there is no true forms of ownership. Without rules or regulations regarding land or property ownership, who is to say what someone actually owns v.s. what everyone owns together as a community. This presents a whole bunch of issues with anarcho-capitalism, which is founded upon the idea that everything can be privately owned instead of government-owned. Therefore, in order for anarchy to be productive in any way, the anarchist community must have extremely high amounts of trust in one another. Unfortunately, people are slow to trust, and many would be wary of this type of respect-based system. If anarchy were to ever exist, it would have to exist in extremely small communities distributed around the country. These communities would most likely need to consist of no more than 100 people. The ability for these communities to create economic systems large enough to support the needs of their people is very small, and limits the ability of these societies to truly thrive. Issues that are not accounted for by Dr. Bylund’s explanation include problems of healthcare, infrastructure, and education. These things, which are normally regulated by the government, must fall into private sectors and ownership. One person cannot possibly be tasked with providing others with healthcare, or else it would not be an anarchist society. Ultimately, there are too many pitfall and holes in the implementation of anarchism for it to ever be truly viable.
Law and Negative Reinforcement
One of the more interesting claims that Dr. Bylund made in his argument for an ordered anarchist society was that, “people don’t refrain from murdering other people simply because the law tells them not to.” He emphasized that humans have a moral understanding of right and wrong, and that people refrain from killing others because of the moral consequences they would deal with. However, this is not reason enough to justify abolishing the state. While people do have moral codes and abide by their morals, the negative impact of going to jail for life is definitely a factor in why people don’t murder each other. If this consequence were to be removed, there would be no repercussions for someone to take someone else’s life. In any case, there are a number of people who do not feel the effects of moral consequence. Sociopaths and psychopaths are held in order due to the ramifications of committing crimes. These people do not feel shame or guilt, and if they had any intent to kill, they would not feel the negative emotions associated with wrong-doing. In a lawless society, there would technically be nothing stopping these kinds of people from doing as they wish without regard for equality or fairness. In addition to this, there are other problems that arise due to lack of law and authority. In the case of ownership, there would be no legal documents claiming ownership of land or property, and if someone had the means to uproot another’s life for the land they are living on, the person with ample resources could easily do so with no repercussions. Although it is nice to believe that everyone would hold themselves accountable and do the right thing, there are simply too many real-world scenarios where people keep crimes hidden until society finds out. The only way people can be held accountable is through legal action and facing the consequences of those decisions. If there are no consequences, then there cannot be accountability, and there cannot be order. Thus, an anarchist society would almost certainly lead to the destruction of morality and society altogether.
Works Cited: