There Is No Way I Can Convince You in a Single Conversation!
A reading list…because understanding anarchism is not an on-off switch.
Since I first started writing here, I have made it my mission to answer every comment and carry on every possible conversation. It takes a lot of time and effort, but I believe it is worth it.
I also encourage conversations of which I am not a part—the more, the merrier. We have built a vibrant community together!
Naturally, in the course of such conversations, there are certain lines of inquiry that keep cropping up. I need to address one of them here…
The commenter is either anarcho-curious or anarcho-skeptical.
The tone ranges from respectful interest to mocking derision. (The latter is less common, but it does happen.)
The discussion eventually comes round to some variant of this:
Commenter
Okay, forget the arguments for why anarchism would be a more moral choice. I do not believe that, from a practical standpoint, it can work.
Me
I totally get that. But as it happens, there are a few historical examples of how it has worked in the past; there is a large body of literature on various ways it can work in the modern era; and there are people who are working on it now, in different ways and different places across the globe.
Sometimes, the commenter will continue the inquiry, raising a specific objection or asking how a particular desirable social goal (security, justice, infrastructure) could possibly be accomplished without government. Or, (s)he will take the standard line that human beings are irretrievably horrid and that the only thing that keeps us in check is government. I will then address these objections with a brief, summary response.
In such a venue as a comment thread, that is pretty much all I can do (especially given the time constraints and the amount of comments I have to answer). I cannot write a 2,000-word response every time.
But even if I could, that would still not be enough. Some topics are simply too complex to be summed up in a few words.
Think of it this way…
Many of the people who raise these objections are patriotic conservatives who still revere the Constitution and believe some purer version of it can be restored with the right amount of voting and other changes. Setting aside disputes as to the actual likelihood of success of such a project, let us use the Constitution as an example…
When the Federalists proposed a new constitution as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation (which they deemed to be inadequate), there was widespread skepticism. (As an aside, that skepticism is the only reason why we now have the best part of the Constitution—the Bill of Rights.)
The Federalists did not address these objections with a sound bite or even a 2,000-word summary. The addressed them with the Federalist Papers—a series of 85 essays released over the course of about eight months. There were dozens of nuanced arguments made in every one of these essays. It is a massive work of apologetics.
To repeat…some topics are simply too complex to be summed up in a few words.
And yet (to return to the exemplar comment-conversation above), I will generally encounter one of the following two conclusions:
Okay, that is an intriguing summary. I look forward to learning more.
Or
You have failed to convince me.
Your system is utopian.
It cannot work.
Nothing you have said here has moved my opinion at all.
And sometimes,You’re an idiot/ridiculous/silly/bonkers/idealist/utopian/stupid.
Please understand that I get why some people simply cannot get past their skepticism in a single conversation.
I have heard it said that a person needs to hear the same argument many times before it has any impact. Changes of opinion on big things usually follow a gradual process—they are rarely instantaneous. Even those sudden Eureka! moments are usually preceded by months or years of previous groundwork.
I totally get it. I could certainly do without the rude responses I occasionally get, but still, I understand.
That being said, it is unrealistic (I won’t call it idiotic, silly, or bonkers) to expect to be convinced by a quick summary of such a massive topic. The summary is supposed to provide an intriguing gateway to more inquiry. That’s all.
Indeed, I myself had to hear many such summaries before I finally started doing the work required to really understand the topic. What I discovered is that there are answers to nearly all the objections. Some of it is theoretical, but it is all quite convincing. And many of the arguments have such a blinding logical clarity that…well, once one has seen them, one wonders how one could ever have thought otherwise.
Even if one isn’t as thoroughly convinced, or has remaining objections, once one has begun delving into this body of apologetics, one at least finally realizes that these are serious arguments made by serious people on behalf of a serious school of thought.
I am going to be blunt here—if a commenter has done no research into this body of work and nonetheless maintains an I’m-sure-I’m-right position, I simply cannot and will not take that position seriously.
In the interests of honesty and self-reflection, I am sure that there were times in the past when I did exactly that. And there are certainly topics now that I will not have time to study in order to gain the proper understanding they deserve. But I would like to think, at this point in my life, that I will not claim that I know for sure that those topics are total garbage based on nothing but my uninformed opinion.
If one truly wishes a deeper understanding, there are two legit ways to go about it:
The slow steady accumulation of knowledge that is summarized by the response, Okay, that is an intriguing summary. I look forward to learning more.
Diving in and doing some deeper research.
If you prefer the former approach, stick around here. I will keep writing about it and you can keep absorbing it as we move forward together.
If you want to go the latter route, below is a short reading list. (Both approaches would, of course, be ideal.)
One of the reasons why anarcho-libertarian ideas are so little known is that they pose the greatest threat to those who would enslave us. So fight back! Learn about those ideas.
In a condition of voluntary order (anarchism), a variety of circumstances would unfold.
Some people would remain on their own property and choose from among competing private providers of security, justice, law codes, infrastructure, etc. (Market anarchism/panarchy)
Some private polities would form—unique experiments in governance and ways of life. People will have the right to join, to exit, to form their own experiments, and to be free on their own land. (Inarchism)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy—The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
This is the book that took me over the finish line. Detailed and brilliant. In it, he talks about both market-anarchist systems and private polities. Maybe bit intense for a first go, but if you're ready for the plunge, do it! It’s the best I know.
David Friedman
The Machinery of Freedom
Linda and Morris Tannehill
The Market for Liberty
Friedman and the Tannehills focus on market anarchism, and their writing is somewhat breezier. Definitely a good entrée into the field.
Robert Nozick
Anarchy, State, and Utopia
Nozick's classic and its discussion of the "Framework" is one of the early forays into the anarcho-inarchic (or really, in Nozick's case, minarchist-inarchic) end of things. The prose of this book is rather hard going at times, but it is still an essential classic.
Paul-Émile de Puydt
Panarchy
De Puydt was a visionary. This is a quick, must-read conceptual essay.
Murray Rothbard
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
Arguably not as detailed on specifics as Friedman, the Tannehills, and Hoppe, Rothbard still lays essential groundwork in this (and his many other erudite published works).
This short essay hits some important points, especially on real-world examples of private law.
Those are a few right off the bat. Please feel free to make suggestions to add to this list.
Update/Edit: For this particular list, I am solely looking for works that provide
A) ideas for how intentional anarchy would work if instantiated in the real world (i.e., how we can create order, justice, security, infrastructure, etc. without the state) and/or
B) examples of how this has been done already at various times in various locations in history.
Recommendations from readers:
Michael Huemer
The Problem of Political Authority
“Huemer devotes about 90 pages of the last half of his book to describe concrete practical ways an ancap society can provide essential services currently provided by government.”
Robert Wenzel
Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person
PS:
Fiction also helps—many works of libertarian fiction are surprisingly detailed in their description of concepts and systems. Two works by Neal Stephenson are really helpful (and enjoyable) ways of getting a picture in your head: Snow Crash and The Diamond Age. I think I like the latter more, but they go together and that is the best order.
Then there is my writing. My focus has been less on how it can work and more on why it is the moral choice, though I am slowly pivoting to more practical work. My #Freepill and #Step1 sections are good for the former. #MovingForward and my upcoming book The Distributed Nation (to be sequentially released here) are good for the latter.
I know that hearing all this is like being tossed into a pond of freezing water. But like I say—if you put in the time to understand it, it will click eventually, and then you'll wonder why you never saw it before.
This is why I do my best to avoid easy-to-ingest labels in my work.
Labels tend to limit discussion since they invite conclusion based on prior experience with said label.
And once someone has concluded, no new information can penetrate that conclusion even when it is obvious and right in someone's face.
Keep up the great work. It is definitely cut out for you.
Huemer refers only to people killed by their own governments. His figures don't include people killed by foreign governments, as in war.
Some people don't read as much as they'd prefer to read because books tend to be expensive. That expense can be avoided by using libraries. Many ebooks are free or very cheap. Used books can be bought at many online sites for a small fraction of their new price. Huemer has started keeping the prices of his books lower by self-publishing.