What Are We Discussing?

Let’s be straightforward: significant topics warrant candid discussions.

Anarchism is sometimes portrayed as a philosophical approach. While it can be articulated in a seemingly philosophical manner, it ultimately falters under rigorous examination. Anarchism often reflects an emotional outcry transformed into a doctrine that overlooks the complexities of human existence.

In contrast, libertarianism claims a philosophical foundation, especially as articulated by thinkers like Robert Nozick. However, its arguments are flawed and unable to withstand critical scrutiny, often resembling a child's fantasy that disregards real-world constraints.

Those who disagree may not engage further, as their beliefs often lack the resilience to confront uncomfortable truths. For those open to reflection, let’s delve into the core contradictions that characterize anarchism and libertarianism. Some insights are derived from my book, Left Wing, Right Wing, People, and Power.

The Anarchism Paradox

Anarchism presents itself as a champion of freedom and self-governance. Advocates like Glenn Wallis describe it as promoting order, equality, mutual aid, and a rejection of all forms of oppression. While these aspirations are commendable, they are not unique to anarchism; most political ideologies—excluding overt fascism—share these goals.

The fundamental principle of anarchism is its rejection of authority. However, if anarchists possessed a nuanced understanding of authority, they could propose a viable alternative. Instead, they conflate all authority with authoritarianism, falling into a simplistic trap.

At its core, anarchism asserts that legitimate political authority does not exist. Hence, any claim to authority is deemed tyrannical. Robert Paul Wolff, in In Defense of Anarchism, articulates this extreme perspective, which aligns with the views of historical anarchists such as Bakunin and Kropotkin.

A realistic assessment reveals that these anarchists do not oppose tyranny per se; rather, they condemn government and societal norms. Proudhon’s assertion that the absence of government will yield freedom reflects a naive misunderstanding of liberty, rooted in ignorance.

Although debates about what constitutes legitimate authority are valid, the extreme stance that no authority can ever be legitimate is absurd. The potential for authority to be abused does not imply that all authority is abusive or inherently tyrannical.

Another anarchist tenet advocates for local governance, suggesting decisions should be made by the closest governing body. Although this contradicts other claims, there is some merit to local governance as an alternative to authoritarianism.

When faced with the reality that local governance can also be coercive, anarchists retreat to the notion of individual sovereignty. They argue that the individual is the sole legitimate authority, allowing them to reject local governance if it seems coercive. This belief is universally echoed in anarchist literature.

The Fundamental Contradiction in Anarchism

Clearly, the emphasis on individual sovereignty undermines the belief in local governance. If all authority is illegitimate, then distinctions between various governance structures become irrelevant. The individual stands as the only rightful authority, and no one can legitimately question their decisions.

Carl Schmitt, a controversial figure, argued that authoritarian leaders often claim individual sovereignty, existing outside the bounds of law. He viewed such power dynamics as beneficial for society, positing that dictators could act independently of all authority.

While anarchists do not aspire to dictatorship, both groups share a belief in individual exceptions to legal norms. Alfredo M. Bonanno, in The Anarchist Tension, suggests that being an anarchist involves rejecting compromises and responsibilities towards others. Such views resonate across various anarchist writings.

Ultimately, anarchism can devolve into a form of individual tyranny, where selfishness is mistaken for virtue. Both anarchists and fascists endorse a system that privileges certain individuals over others while rejecting the rule of law. The scale of their beliefs may differ, but the underlying philosophy bears striking similarities.

Anarchism fails to recognize the necessity of accountability. Local decision-making is valuable, yet without a framework of authority, such decisions can become arbitrary and capricious. Anarchists proclaim a desire for personal freedom, a sentiment shared by many. However, true freedom is constrained by the realities of living in a shared world.

Each person's freedoms are limited by the existence of others, physical laws, and social dynamics. We create laws and norms to navigate these limitations, fostering coexistence. Anarchists overlook the essence of humanity, which is interdependence.

The core contradiction in anarchism lies in its demand for absolute freedom, which inadvertently denies the moral value of others. By insisting on complete liberation from external authority, anarchists eliminate any basis to challenge abusive behavior. This paradoxical stance leaves individuals vulnerable to coercion, contradicting their proclaimed ideals.

Not every law is just, yet a complete absence of laws is far worse. Anarchists yearn for freedom while negating the very mechanisms that can secure it, ultimately seeking liberation from accountability.

Tearing Down the Libertarians’ Sacred Cow

Similar to anarchists, libertarians assert a desire for freedom but misunderstand its true essence.

A common joke highlights the perceived differences: “What’s the distinction between an anarchist and a libertarian?” The punchline often points to their contrasting appearances.

Libertarians advocate for limited government, but if they view reduced governance as right-wing, then their call for no government positions them as extreme right-wing.

While the right encompasses more than mere anti-government sentiment, libertarianism fixates on demonizing governmental authority, especially regarding economic intervention.

Libertarians idolize the notion of freedom from government regulation, which they see as a threat to commercial activities. Conservatives similarly favor less oversight, as adherence to accountability can hinder profit margins. In a landscape devoid of legal accountability, crime can indeed thrive, reflecting the libertarian vision.

Robert Nozick’s Minarchism

Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick arguably presents the most coherent expression of libertarian thought. He advocates for a minimal state with limited governmental intervention. His entitlement theory posits that individuals acquiring property through just means rightfully own that property, allowing for transfer as long as justice principles are upheld.

While Nozick's arguments are consistent, the interpretation of what constitutes "just" is open to debate and often manipulated for personal gain. He posits that individuals are free to act as they wish, provided they compensate others for any harm caused. Critics note this perspective disproportionately benefits the wealthy, as Nozick offers no mechanisms to rectify property acquisition abuses.

Nozick's vision of the minimal state is a softened version of Hobbes’s state of nature, suggesting that a government with limited powers is preferable to anarchy, as it can safeguard individuals' rights, particularly regarding property.

Despite his arguments favoring a minimal state, libertarianism generally leans toward an anarchistic framework, advocating for comprehensive individual freedoms as long as they do not infringe upon others. However, many libertarians dismiss the notion of positive rights, focusing instead on negative freedoms, which leads to rejecting governmental business regulations.

Anarcho-capitalism, a subset of libertarianism, proposes that corporations should establish private enforcement agencies to protect their property rights. This perspective concentrates power within corporate entities, diverging from conservatism, which views government as a tool to achieve similar ends.

The Fundamental Contradiction in Libertarianism

While some regulations may be excessive, the libertarian aspiration for a government-free existence is an irrational, reactionary stance. Nozick’s minarchism represents a more moderate viewpoint compared to the anarcho-capitalism favored by some tech entrepreneurs.

The fundamental contradiction in libertarianism consists of two elements that contribute to the unrealistic belief that a world without government would be improved.

Firstly, libertarians mistakenly attribute tyranny solely to government, failing to recognize that all governments are constructs of people. If a government is oppressive, it is because individuals within it perpetuate that system, concentrating power in a select few.

This misunderstanding leads libertarians to become unwitting advocates for non-governmental entities that perpetuate tyranny. For instance, corporations may threaten to relocate operations if governments impose regulations, prompting libertarians to argue for deregulation, assuming it benefits workers. This overlooks the potential for unchecked corporate power to harm workers and communities.

Secondly, libertarians erroneously believe that order arises solely from contracts among self-interested individuals, misinterpreting Adam Smith’s assertion regarding commerce. While self-interest is a factor in economic transactions, Smith did not intend for it to be the foundation of societal organization.

Libertarians have transformed self-interest into a quasi-religious belief, assuming that individual desires alone can create a harmonious society. They view government as the primary antagonist to this vision, advocating for a life devoid of regulation, which ultimately translates to a lack of accountability.

In reality, individuals can only exercise freedom when they have the opportunity to act. This necessitates a balance between the absence of coercive forces (negative liberty) and the empowerment to take action (positive liberty).

Libertarians focus narrowly on negative liberty, perceiving government as the only source of coercion. However, all power is susceptible to abuse, and the concentration of power—whether governmental or non-governmental—can lead to significant abuses.

The belief that individual contracts will create order neglects the fact that individuals require the means to establish and uphold these contracts, necessitating a societal structure that promotes positive liberties. Regrettably, libertarianism often advocates for the opposite.

Anarchism and Libertarianism as Antihumanisms

Both anarchism and libertarianism embody ideologies that fail to appreciate the complexities of human existence and societal living. They each take a fragment of truth and warp it into a flawed interpretation of freedom.

While both groups rightly emphasize the importance of the individual, they lack a comprehensive understanding of power dynamics and the essence of humanity.

As children, we often perceive ourselves as in conflict with the world, viewing rules and societal structures as impediments to our desires. Maturation brings an understanding of life’s complexities, recognizing the rationale behind rules and our responsibilities within a broader social context.

Anarchism and libertarianism reflect a lingering childlike perspective, envisioning a world devoid of constraints. However, the pursuit of absolute freedom from external authority leads to a paradox where the few may dominate the many.

If societal structures, such as roads and emergency services, lack legitimate governance, they may fall into private ownership. In such a scenario, individuals may possess property but could be denied access to common resources by those who control them. This dynamic highlights the coercive power that could arise from a so-called anarchistic freedom.

In a world lacking legitimate authority, individuals have no recourse against the whims of those who control shared spaces. Anarchists and libertarians may advocate for freedom from government, but they inadvertently endorse an alternative form of oppression.

A balanced society recognizes the need for a collective interest amidst individual rights. Government serves a role akin to that of a referee, ensuring adherence to rules and facilitating fair play. Individuals enjoy the most freedom when the social environment guarantees equitable participation and clarity in the rules governing interactions.

Anarcho-libertarians may wish to disengage from societal structures. While they have the right to do so, it should not infringe upon the rights of others. Their ideologies should not impose a vision of freedom that disregards the interconnectedness of humanity.

Ironically, the ultimate contradiction of anarchism and libertarianism lies in their proclaimed opposition to tyranny, as they tend to impose their ideologies on others, disregarding the principles of autonomy and mutual respect.