Building the Island: | Intro | #1 | #2 |
Over the last six months or so, I have observed an encouraging shift. An increasing number have begun to accept the argument, which I have been making so strenuously in these pages, that no form of involuntary governance is morally permissible.
Many are starting to acknowledge that ‘democracy’—even our constitutional republican kind—does not fix this problem…
Accepting, however reluctantly, that no amount of voting can save us.
Realizing that there is no “original vision” of the Founders to return to, because no one such vision ever existed.
Coming to the conclusion that government will never save you from government. That this will never end unless we end it.
I am even getting yelled at less frequently than before!
Many of you have taken the first essential step towards building the next world: realizing the fundamental and insoluble problems of this one. You have taken the free-pill, and it has begun to work its magic.
Yet there remains a big stumbling block preventing people from going to the next level: the assumption that no alternative to government is possible because no successful alternative has ever existed.
Where has anarchism ever worked in the past?
Unfortunately, when one heads out onto the internet in search of an answer to that question, one tends to find a lot about the worst examples, and very little about the best.
Lists of anarchist communities experiments tend to focus on communes, secessions, and left-wing revolutions that did not last very long.
One experiment—Free Territory of Freedomland—actually held out a bit longer than most—lasting 18 fraught years before finally being absorbed by the Philippines. But you are just as likely to hear about the rapid failure of the Republic of Minerva, which only made it a few months before being seized by Tonga.
Freetown Christiania has managed to operate somewhat successfully since 1971.
Revolutionary Catalonia is often cited as an example (and the final chapter of that region’s drive for independence is not yet written).
Other examples pop up, though some of those tend to be more on the left-anarchist end of things, which is not a way of life that I personally would choose.
You only come across the real success stories if you know the right search strings or go to honest sources. The information gaps seems almost intentional.
And yet, the truth is out there…
#1 Somalia
Somalia is obviously not some fantastical success story. Indeed, it is frequently cited by defenders of the state as an example of the kind of chaos that ensues when government is absent. Often enough, this impression is achieved with a quick, snarky meme proclaiming Somalia’s dusty poverty to be the apotheosis of the anarchist dream.
The actual data tell a different story, however. In a proper apples-to-apples comparison, Somalia, during its recent stateless period, did better by nearly every metric.
#2 Brehon Ireland
Ireland had a private law system for more than a thousand years. This system of law was developed without any central direction—no state needed. Private judges were hired to interpret that law and adjudicate disputes, and the judges with the greatest reputations for fairness and probity got hired more frequently.
The Brehon system served Ireland quite well for a long, long time, until a state was imposed upon it with unspeakable savagery.
#3 The Hanseatic League
The Hanseatic League alone ought to dispel the notion that peace and cooperation can only be achieved by a central government imposing order and serving as the final arbiter of justice.
In fact, the League did just fine without that for more than four centuries.
The League was dominating commercial relations with the Levant, Venice, Spain, France and England in timber, fur, grain, honey, Scandinavian copper and iron, in return for spices, medicine, fruit and wine and cotton. Such is how this loose coalition of Flying Dutchman--capitalists emerged as an empire without a State. […]
Ruled by a code of honor as a de-centralized alliance, trade was everything and “The State” was looked upon as a land-locked, bureaucratic annoyance. The League came together and stayed together to share the risks of trading, seafaring and—where necessary—to deal with pestering overlords who knew nothing of commerce on the high seas but could smell a fresh source of taxation from a thousand Baltic tributaries away. They were “men who would not fight or steal; who would not live by plunder for pay,” as a 19th century British magazine, The Illustrated Magazine of Art, once swooned in nostalgia. “As those who wished to sell honestly, they were compelled to unite together for their own protection in order that they not be deprived of the rich goods they brought back with them from Italy for the north of Europe. They formed an association—one which ultimately became the proud and powerful rival of Kings and Emperors.”
In no time those kings and emperors “begged their loans and pawned their crowns” to do business with the Hansa and their fleet of 248 merchant ships — the pride and power of the seas. Lübeck, at one point the richest city in Europe and referred to as the “Carthage of the North”, became the unofficial capital of the League, one that maintained its own mercenary-army of 50,000. But that was about it. The League had no coherent political organization. To join or to leave was determined by trading interests of the merchants—there was never a clearly defined administrative center or even a system for raising taxes. […]
The League’s on-again, off-again Diet met whenever and wherever it was convenient to discuss things; there was no army or navy, and in the event of some outside threat, the cities most at stake would come together to decide a common plan of action such as higher tariffs, and only rarely the waging of war.
The merchant and marine law they developed held sway over a large swath of the activities of medieval Europe. Princes did serve as lords of these commercial cities (it was the Middle Ages, after all), but they had less impact on the daily lives and freedoms of citizens than “democratic” governments do today.
By far.
Those who argue that only government can create law and order simply have to ignore a combined millennium and a half of history!1
Naturally, we must continue discussing how these aims can be achieved in the modern era, and we shall. But in the meantime, if a supposed lack of historical examples is what is holding you up, it should do so no longer.
Brehon Ireland and the Hanseatic League were no fly-by-night operations. They were the real deal.
There was also the ancient Harappan civilization, which may (no one knows for sure) have been another example of an “empire without a state.”
Iceland from about 930AD would be another example.
A lot of research to do on your examples before I am qualified to respond. Just want to thank you for giving me the examples to begin my study.
Preliminarily, while I think some form of "government" is necessary, I mean by that a structure whereby people in agreement organize their lives around such a structure. I don't tend to view the concept of anarchy quite as you do. My current view of anarchy is a sort of Hobbesian free for all, or a Mad Maxian dystopia. Perhaps my view is incorrect and I will check out your examples. An example of my own would be the Navajo, highly ritualistic but any "leader" who tried to control the populace would soon be displaced as leader. (not today where Navajo council members are elected for predetermined terms). The leaders were as bound as anyone to the structure, primarily built around an advanced ritualism. On the other hand, anyone was free to abandon the structure and not participate---but the community would at that time disassociate themselves from the individual.
So I guess my mind questioning of your position is perhaps a failure to understand if anarchy is unstructured free for all, and must lack any principles of organization; or do you see all structuring as government, which is, I guess, the way I tend to view it. I may not think our current structure is optimal for freedom, but I still tend to view the concept of government with the concept of a structured organization, so what is your view on that? Am I misinterpreting the concepts of government and anarchy via my view that one is a structure and the other the abandonment of all structuralism?