For years I have frequented fora that have been ostensibly devoted to the idea of establishing anarchic societies. One of the common characteristics I have observed in such groups has been the glaring lack of any practical architectures for implementation. The discussions of such arrangements remind me of the South Park episode where the underpants gnomes' plan goes something like:
"Collect underpants --> ??? --> Profit."
In other words, they had no idea how to get from point A to point Z. Such has been the experience in my discussions with ostensible anarchists. The truly alarming aspect of such interactions has been to witness how supposedly intelligent adults neither see the problem, nor want to see it, often referring to those who make reference to the practical challenges of free societal life as "statists", the most grievous insult they can hurl.
So let us at least try a fifty-thousand foot peek at what would be needed in order to materially express a free land where neither was there a "government" to insult the rights of men, nor a mishmash of chaotic tribes killing each other for any of the usual human reasons and justifications in grand old feudal fashion.
Recall, if you will, that "anarchy" means "no rulers".
This does not mean "no rules".
Therefore, if there are rules, then people must be held to the lines said rules draw around each member of the population, lest there be no reason to have rules in the first place. This raises two fundamental issues.
Firstly, if we are to have rules, they must be objectively complete, correct, and clear. One of the main reasons so many people have come to hold "law" in such contempt is precisely because most "law" is not Law, but mere statute which represent nothing better than the almost universally capricious will of legislators, with little to no respect for the rights of the people. Statutes that falsely criminalize illicit drugs, for example, are not Law. The same may be said for statutes that prohibit prostitution. Tax statutes are one of the more egregious examples of non-Law that is enforced at the point of the sword with grim vigor by drooling sadists who seem to actually believe they are doing right.
Secondly, and conditional upon the fact of the point above, if we are to have objectively proper rules to which people must conform their behaviors, such as not murdering one another, for example, then we must have in place the means of dealing with those who violate those boundaries.
In anarchic circles, many believe that such administration of Law can be accomplished "privately", and that any such duties performed by a "state" is inherently evil precisely because the "state" is the administrator. This is likely true, but not for the reasons most seem to believe. Let us remind ourselves that the "state" does not really exist, nor "government". These are confabulations that have no material existence of their own, independent of the human mind. Remove the people and both "state" and "government" vanish into the mists as if my magic. When we strip away such mental fakery, the mind is lead closer to the real truth that these purported institutions are nothing more than mobs of individual human beings holding no greater authority than yourself to make demands upon one's fellow human beings. When we strip away these veils that cloud and often blind us to the greater truths of our inter-human relationships, our thoughts are immediately freed to draw conclusions to which no agent of any "state" wants his peons to arrive: that said agent has no authority, and that even the most cursory examination of the seemingly endless oceans of statutory fiats exposes their gross invalidity and often blatantly ironic criminality.
The so-called "private" justice systems to which so many anarchists appear to have wed themselves give rise to risks of the self-same sort, as well as to others that can be avoided, were we to correct the flaws in our current fare.
For example, depending on how we define "private justice" there could arise what becomes an effective feudal system of private governance. Furthermore, the possibility exists for differing jurisdictions to have implemented widely differing notions of justice, crime, and so forth, such that the security of the individual who travels between such jurisdictions might never be quite certain. Imagine waltzing over a line in a purple shirt or blouse and being immediately arrested and charged with a felony because purpole raiment is reserved only for administrators of Law. For those who scoff at this as ridiculous, you need to read a little of the history of France and the French kings. Is this what we really want? Free lands must perforce be based in the principles of proper human relations, this being a core requirement and in no way an option, lest the administrators slide ever so slickly into the shoes of tyrants.
Such hazards exist no matter how one labels, or even structures their systems of rules and pursuant justice.
We see it today, and privatizing what we now have is no guarantee that things would be any better, and that they may well devolve into something far, far worse.
Furthermore, the argument that says in the case of a failed private justice system, that the "market" would simply put them out of business carries many flaws. For one thing, there is no assurance that the claims of market correction would prove out. Secondly, and more importantly, even if those claims did manifest, what about the miscarriages of justice that had already occurred? Will every case ever heard by those courts be reviewed and the wrongly convicted released with proper compensation? Will the administrators of the presumably corrupted justice system be held accountable, and if so, by whom and by what means? Are we to assume that those administrators would go quietly into the hands of their accusers to be judged and possibly punished most severely? Given the almost universally consistent historical patterns in such matters, my expectation would be that not only would the accused give their accusers the finger, they would muster their forces to defend themselves with as much violence as would be necessary to avoid being held accountable. What of those cases where the private entity has acted justly and rightly, but yet another jurisdiction found otherwise? What about where one jurisdiction wishes to eliminate the competition in the spirit of good old fashioned human avarice?
The advantage to an authority that is "public" is that when properly structured and administered, those who comprise such institutions are given every incentive to act in accord with the propriety of their positions, accountable to those whom they serve. In a so-called "private" justice system, no such conditions may be imposed upon the administrators and other members of the institution, for were they to be so restricted, there would be absolutely no functional difference between them and the public variant, and we are reduced to distinctions sans difference.
But what constitutes "properly structured and administered"? The answer has several aspects, the minutiae of which we will not discuss here, and the first of which lies in the need for a very stern accountability standard where those who violate their oaths of good faith and competent service are called upon to face the most dire punishments that could even spill over into their immediate families in some cases, most especially in economic terms. A properly authored oath of office/service would be an operational starting point with every individual required to swear such an oath, with the "people" willing and eager to hold violators accountable with a vigorous will to punish violators in the most grim fashions imaginable. The Public Trust must be preserved at all cost, which means that unamended transgressions by those in positions of Special Trust, in violation of the rights of those to whom their oaths have been sworn, must be met with draconian consequences.
What I have described could be viewed as a "state", yet in my estimation it could as easily be viewed simply as a Public institution whose purpose is to provide a Constitutionally qualified service to the people without the same mental baggage that comes with the monikers of the "state" and "government". The mental cancer of these appellations carriy deeply tacit notions of infallible and unchallengeable authority. A "state" can get away with all manner of transgressions against the people that it is supposed to serve precisely because people tend to believe that it can, whether justly or otherwise. A group of Constitutional Trustees in whom the Public Trust has been vested, however, carries a far different mental quality and effect; one that could be saved from morphing into that which is effectively identical to that of "state" and "government".
My suggestion is that we need to begin thinking in terms of governANCE, rather than those of governMENT. Governance is an action, a function, and a role. Psychologically speaking, "government" is a thing, an object in the minds of people that has become an irresistible juggernaut whose authority cannot be challenged; a thing in and of itself with an existence independent of human thought, this being perhaps the grandest and most dastardly lie ever foisted upon humanity. The difference between the two is 100% fundamental insofar as they affect the minds of people; and always remember that mind is nearly everything. Where mind goes, Brother Ass follows.
In the case of "government", the power of belief in the lie of its material existence is immeasurable and of the most dangerous and destructive sort imaginable. It is the single greatest factor in the erosion of our inherent liberties, and "Government" has by far been the single greatest source of human misfortune and misery since men raised the walls at Sumer. The events of the twentieth century alone, with somewhere near two hundred millions murdered by "government" should be all the evidence needed by any nominally intelligent and morally intact adult to conclude that governMENT needs to go the way of the dodo in preference to governANCE, instituted not by nonexistent governMENT painted as a real and materially extant entity, but as affected by other men in whom that Special Trust has been vested and who may be called to account at any moment for their actions by any other citizen of the realm. Such people govern; they do not rule. They govern in accord with Law, and not mere statute, nor do they make it up as they go along. They would be held to a strict standard of good faith and competent service in the discharge of their duties pursuant to their roles as agents of guardianship of the rights of all men. Such men are to be sentinels and champions of the liberties of all men, and not the destroyers thereof.
Instilling this mindset would likely prove a monumental task, but what other choice is there - to sit in the wash of the current status quo, waiting idly for the death of all that is good between men in the wake of a "government" that has so very clearly lost its mind?
We should all want proper governance, while rejecting "government" as the administrative agent in pursuit thereof. Proper governance begins and ends with you, and not some airy-fairy notion of a "government" pledged to watch over and defend your rights, which has been the prevailing idea for thousands of years and which has proven a universal failure.
Protecting each other's rights should be a paramount consideration of our daily lives, but this requires work and an attitude vastly different from that which today prevails in gross and overwhelming majority. We have failed at this most important task with pyrotechnic misery, entrusting ourselves, our rights into the hands of the most questionable characters imaginable. If I suffer Themme to violate the rights of my fellows, who will be there for me when Theye come knocking at my door? You need to think on that very carefully and for as long as it takes for you to come to the correct conclusion. Governance is a task that "government" has proven itself incapable of doing on a consistently and sufficiently proper basis in even a single case to which one might point since men chose civilization over the savage life of the hunter-gatherer. If we are going to acknowledge the need to respect every man's rights, which is the gateway condition to every man's proper freedom, we must then also accept the responsibilities that go with such recognition. As the old saying goes, freedom isn't free - nor is it inexpensive.
Be well, and until next time please accept my best wishes.
