Why Anarchy Doesn’t Automatically Lead to Tyranny

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:


by Ian Tartt

 

In debates between anarchist libertarians and non-anarchist libertarians, a common statement made by non-anarchists is that anarchy will lead to tyranny. They say anarchy creates power vacuums that are soon filled up by brutal rulers. Does this claim have any merit? Let’s see.

Most often, non-anarchists who bring up this point go on to paint a very different picture than what anarchists have in mind. Countries like Somalia with collapsed governments are typically used by non-anarchists as examples  of the danger of power vacuums. But most anarchists don’t support such societies or even see them as anarchist societies in the first place. Anarchists envision a society in which people voluntarily work together and respect each other’s rights; when rights are violated, competing services provided by the market sort things out. This is quite different than, for instance, a state that collapses due to a centrally-planned economy, revolution, or invasion from another state. Clearly, a society which has suffered through any of those is going to be weaker and more prone to takeover than a society that hasn’t. Because of the difference between the types of societies anarchists describe and the types of societies said to be anarchist, those who describe an anarchist society as having a power vacuum are effectively creating a straw man.

There are a number of possible objections to this. Some might ask why power-hungry people wouldn’t just join the private police, courts, and defense agencies to get their way. After all, isn’t that what happens when those functions are provided by the government? The answer to the latter question is yes. However, with regards to the former query, there are some crucial distinctions between services provided by the government and services provided by the market. Government services have a monopoly of force and are funded coercively through taxation, borrowing money, or printing money. Try competing against government courts or not paying for government police and see what happens. Market services, on the other hand, depend on people choosing to use and fund them. Because monopolies are only possible through government coercion and therefore no monopoly can be sustained in a free market, market services will always be subject to competition. This means that, unlike government services that don’t have to be run efficiently or to the liking of those who use them, market services must keep costs low and work to please their customers. Anyone who tried raising prices or pushing people around would lose their customers to other service providers who charged reasonable prices and treated people well.

All right; if they can’t join private police, courts, or defense agencies, then why couldn’t they just come in with superior firepower and destroy them? Stefan Molyneux has an excellent video that examines why building up what would essentially be a private army to accomplish such a takeover would be incredibly difficult if not downright impossible without a government to back you up. Even if such an army could be built and controlled without the power of government force, it would still have to take on all the private police and defense agencies, of which there would likely be thousands if not tens of thousands. These agencies would be able to help each other out if necessary in defending themselves and their customers against the private army. But because the agencies would not be intertwined and managed by one central organization as is the case with government agencies, taking over all of them would be a near-impossible feat.

What about the possibility of invasion from a neighboring state? Again, because there is no existing state to conquer and seize within the society we’ve been examining, there’d be no quick, easy way to take over. An invading state would have to take out all the private police and security agencies, which would be no easy or small feat. And even if it could do that, it would then have to set up a state where none exists, which would be an arduous task; making the task even more difficult is the fact that it would also have to deal with militias or rebellious groups fighting back against their new masters. The people could also leave the country and take their stuff with them, which would give the invading state nobody to rule over and no wealth to confiscate.

Further, if an anarchist society has emerged through voluntary means of organization and respect for property rights, then it’s likely that most of the other societies in the world have at least become minarchist if not anarchist as well. Once the benefits of free markets, respect for property rights, and voluntary interactions are seen by the world, it won’t be long before other countries (countries drowning in massive debts, burdensome regulations, and violations of civil liberties) would adopt such policies. Those countries that failed to do so would see massive segments of their populations leaving and moving to the countries that already had such policies in place. This would make the problem of invasion by another state largely a non-issue.

When non-anarchist libertarians talk about anarchism, it’s easy to tell who has researched anarchist materials and who hasn’t. Some such materials have been referenced above in this article, and others will be listed here for those who want to do further research into this subject. The Mises Institute is an excellent resource for information about economics, foreign policy, history, current events, and books on all these subjects. Murray Rothbard has written dozens of books and thousands of articles on his views, but for one book that covers a lot of ground, “For a New Liberty” is hard to beat. “Anatomy of the State”, a short essay from Rothbard, is also excellent. Tom Woods has hundreds of videos available on YouTube, many of which cover his thoughts on anarchy. These are but a few of the many available anarchists resources and they should offer more than enough information to give anyone a thorough understanding of the anarchist perspective. Perhaps they can be used to help foster better discussions between anarchist and non-anarchist libertarians, or at least show non-anarchists why anarchists think the way they do.


WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

3 comments

automated tests platform June 28, 2023 at 11:28 am

… [Trackback]

[…] Info to that Topic: thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-anarchy-doesnt-automatically-lead-to-tyranny/ […]

rad 150 bodybuilding porn November 22, 2023 at 12:26 pm

… [Trackback]

[…] Read More on on that Topic: thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-anarchy-doesnt-automatically-lead-to-tyranny/ […]

สล็อตวอเลท February 15, 2024 at 6:50 pm

… [Trackback]

[…] Information to that Topic: thelibertarianrepublic.com/why-anarchy-doesnt-automatically-lead-to-tyranny/ […]

Leave a Comment