This is in response to a rant put up here at SOL by an author who goes by Mark Gander. This blog entry will make a lot more sense if you read his rant first.
Interesting theories you have there, sir.
You say "one must defy and defeat those injustices wherever they are found". Okay, so who gets to define what is just?
If not a government, if not the "compulsory institutions of the State" then who shall do it? The "voluntary ones(institutions) to which I have freely submitted myself"?
What if the values of your "voluntary institution" and mine, are different? Shall we go to war? Shall we meet in the parking lot of the local mall and have a dual? Fight it out with pistols or swords or bricks and lead pipes? I don't agree with much of what you say in your short little rant. If we can't agree on little things, how well we ever agree on the bigger things? So who gets to choose what is right? What is Just?
In your rant, you say that revenge affairs are just for when a spouse cheats. That it's okay for the wronged partner to have an affair so everything ends up equal. Both partners had sex outside of their relationship. Everything should be hunky dory. That's your opinion.
Others, may not agree. I would immediately divorce my wife if she had sex with another man - revenge sex be damned.
I read an article in the last few days about a female dentist over in Poland who was wronged by her boyfriend. When he, admittedly foolishly, came to her work with a sore tooth, she proceeded to put him to sleep and pulled all of his teeth. She felt that was just. Do you agree? I don't. Do you think the boyfriend agreed? The Polish government certainly didn't. They yanked her medical license and she now faces charges.
Of course, in your rant, you say that getting revenge isn't really getting revenge if you get caught and the female dentist obviously got caught since it's in the news. You tell your readers to wait until after collapse of the government. Wise advice.
The above arguments work as well for "fairness," which you also argue for in your rant. Again, who gets to define what is "fair?" My definition and your definition are probably significantly different.
A few examples, some say abortion is wrong. I say it's unfair. The mother gets to choose. The father doesn't get a say. The baby certainly doesn't get a say. One out of three people directly involved gets to make that decision. Yes, it's her body. But that baby is only half hers.
You say in your rant that the death penalty is "a highly political and prejudiced tool that punishes the innocent with the guilty." I say it's fair. You kill someone, we kill you back! You support revenge sex but not the death penalty?
You say you don't like governments but, isn't it true, that whoever gets to make these judgement call on what is "fair" and "just" becomes a government? They would be setting rules and standards for those around them.
How far do you wish to take your anarchy? You don't tell whether you're American, British, German, Russian or Japanese so I will have to use my own experience.
Are we just talking about getting rid of the Federal government? Or shall we do away with state and local governments as well? You talk about getting rid of the police - after all, they "often arrest people for self-defense while failing to get there in time to protect people from thugs." - In America, the police are not a branch of the federal government so I'm guessing you wish to do away with state and local governments also.
I have to wonder if you've truly thought through what you are calling for here.
If you get rid of the government, who will maintain the roads? Shall we go back to the way it was before World War One where there was a patchwork of roads, some paved, some dirt, some maintained, some not. This confusing web of roads was what inspired President Eisenhower to build the Interstate system that keeps most of America moving nowadays. If it isn't maintained, it won't last long and it's already deteriorating with maintenance. Patches of road will become so potholed that it will be practically impassable. Bridges will collapse. The locals might deem to take care of their own roads, but connecting to another town, while allowing trade, also allows problems from that town or city to flow into your city. No one wants that.
As traffic slows, and then eventually stops, between cities, between states, trade will become more and more difficult. You should be planning to grow and buy local because nothing else will be easily, readily, or cheaply available and God forbid you live in a city, a desert or on rocky ground where crops don't grow.
Speaking of which, as interstate trade and traffic breaks down, other things will break down. Why should the good people in what is now Arizona continue to provide water and electricity to southern California, including Los Angeles? Under your system, look for Phoenix, Los Angeles and Las Vegas to all become ghost towns as none of them could survive for even a short length of time without outside assistance. New York City would also empty as there just isn't enough land to grow crops and keep animals.
Anarchy doesn't work. You can't continue our way of life under anarchy.
In order for a civilization to work there has to be rules. Someone has to set, and enforce, those rules. The person or group making and enforcing rules become the government. This all grew quite naturally from way back when the cave men first started banding together into tribes and picked a leader, whether it was the oldest, the strongest or the best hunter, someone had to lead. That leader set and enforced the rules. He became the government.
Please ladies and gentlemen, do not flood me with e-mails on whatever your favorite political topic is - abortion, death penalty, whatever - The above rant does NOT necessarily explain, accurately or completely, my true opinions on these topics. I was making an argument against Anarchy, not for or against abortion or the death penalty. Thank you.