On anarchy

The common notion of anarchy is synonymous with chaos, a lack of order, and a generally free reign of anyone with the inclination to control other people. This notion is wrong. People who view anarchy in this way do not understand the meanings, implications, or finer structure of what it really is.

The principle of anarchy is based on the absence of a government. In an anarchistic society, no “regulatory body” would exist to ensure all of the things that governments normally ensure. For example, there would be no institution that establishes or enforces laws, collects taxes, provides healthcare or welfare, distributes and regulates currency, manages transportation systems, employs public sanitation, provides protection for its citizens, or any of the many other things that governments do (or claim to do).

It is nearly impossible to envision such a system, because the modern lives of most of the world have become dependent on the things that governments provide. But imagine, for a moment, what would happen if a government suddenly stopped providing these things. For example, if laws ceased to be enforced, then the entire basis of the legal system would disintegrate. If a person was given a sum of money for the assassination of another person, and there were no legal consequences for committing this act, then it stands to reason that the act would be more likely to take place. (Though, the assassin would surely have other consequences to consider, such as his or her target unexpectedly defending him or herself, or any variety of other circumstances that might influence the assassination.)

Likewise, if a person were motivated to exercise domination or control over another person (perhaps physically, sexually, mentally, etc.), then this would have no legal consequence whatsoever. Certainly, these scenarios, while speculative, exemplify very reasonable possibilities if a system for legal enforcement was not in place. In fact, it is furthermore reasonable to assume that under such conditions, those individuals with the mental and/or physical inclination to control others would do so, and as a consequence, the society would contain some people who dominate, and also some people who are dominated. But this system would not be an anarchy. In an anarchy, there is no government, but when an individual or group of individuals dominates, controls, regulates, or enforces anything at all, then this is a form of governing.

So based on these rudimentary observation about human tendencies, it is clear that the sudden absence of a government would not constitute an anarchy in the least, because people will continue to govern. With this thought in mind, one may wonder if it is possible for an anarchy to exist at all. This is an important consideration because it addresses whether humans are even capable of existence without government. The commonly overlooked feature of an anarchistic system is that it cannot be spawned from the elimination of a government; it can only come about when all the people in a society are personally responsible to the degree that a government becomes unnecessary.

If a society were to be truly anarchistic, then no one within that society would govern any one else. Not only would such a society have no laws, but it would have no need for laws because the tendency for people to control other people would be void. The absence of government, of course, would not prevent citizens from willingly providing the services that modern governments provide; it would only mean that actions would not be regulated. In fact, an anarchy might be considered to be synonymous with another commonly misunderstand term: utopia.