Why Are You Surrendering Without a Fight?

Who are we? We are the people who TRY. (DN 4.14)

What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

—Patrick Henry

Last week, I posted an audio version (and linked it to the text) of Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. Murphy’s monograph is one of the most concise descriptions of how anarchism could (and likely will) work in the real world. The post received many interesting questions and comments in reply.

One subset of the responses included an oft-repeated objection: some people are irretrievably wicked; therefore, anarchism cannot work. I really want you all to understand how deeply flawed this objection is.

The objection separates into two subcategories, which we can paraphrase thusly:

1. “Anarchism” means chaos.

2. I understand the concept of libertarian anarchism, but it cannot work because (some) people are too wicked.

#1
“Anarchism” means chaos

Let us dispense with the first rather quickly. “Anarchism,” in the (libertarian) sense in which we are using it here, means the absence of involuntary government, NOT the absence of order. Shall I repeat that in all caps?

ANARCHISM MEANS THE ABSENCE OF INVOLUNTARY GOVERNMENT, NOT THE ABSENCE OF ORDER.

Please excuse the frustration. I understand that this is a new concept for some. That’s fine. But some of those newbies simply ignore my explanations of what “anarchy” actually means in this context and keep reverting to its definition as “chaos.” (A definition that serves the interests of our oppressors quite nicely, by the way).

So, to clarify,

In a condition of (market) anarchism, order is produced in a different way.

Current way: A single entity (government) forcibly imposes an involuntary, non-competitive monopoly of authority over a given territory and upon a captive people.

Market-anarchist way: Private agencies offer security, justice, and related services and compete to attract willing customers for said services.

You may have questions about how the market-anarchist way could work. That is entirely reasonable. That is what Murphy’s monograph seeks to answer, which is why I shared it. But if you didn’t watch or read the monograph, or you bowl right past all clarifications about what “anarchism” means in this context—ignoring or failing to acknowledge the word has more than one meaning—then you are doing us all a disservice.

Again, I am sympathetic that these concepts are new to some. But I implore you to look at this concept with fresh eyes, rather than reverting to the familiar, well-indoctrinated trope that anarchy means chaos, and that order is impossible without involuntary government.

At least listen to the arguments to the contrary before dismissing them out of hand.

#2
I understand the concept of libertarian anarchism, but it cannot work because (some) people are too wicked.

Objection #1 is ignorant of, avoids, or ignores any definition of the word “anarchy” but the definition fed to us all by 5,000 years of statism and 5,000 hours of Walking Dead spinoffs. In that analysis, the wickedness of people + the absence of order = disaster.

Objection #2 is a more reasonable position. It recognizes that market anarchism is not the absence of order, but holds that the kind of order produced in a condition of market anarchism is insufficient to overcome human wickedness. No matter what the system or condition, the objector holds, psychopaths will eventually seize power. I myself believed this for many years.

Yet there is a fundamental logical flaw in this argument—one so deep and so devastating that when one finally sees it, it can never again be unseen. I deal with it in a short piece titled You're a Rotten Person Who Cannot Handle Freedom. Briefly,

If humans are so rotten and wicked, then giving a small subset of humans inescapable, involuntary power to use violence against the rest of us is the WORST possible solution.

This notion is further reinforced by the fact (revealed in studies, and obvious from all of human history) that power attracts a disproportionate share of psychopaths. Thus, what we are really doing is giving inescapable, involuntary power to use violence against the rest of us…to psychopaths. (I have further explained that ‘democracy’ does not solve this problem.)

Your choices are not as we’ve been taught—government keeping us safe vs. anarchic chaos. That is statist mythology. Here are your actual choices:

A system that gives psychopaths (and others) inescapable, involuntary power to use violence against the rest of us…to tax us, force our obedience, print endless money, build world-destroying weapons, wage world-scale war, and conscript us to fight…a system to which we grant the presumption of legitimacy and bend the knee,

OR

A condition in which psychopaths still exist, but do NOT have ANY of those things, and are kept in check by market forces.

What keeps the psychos in check in the first scenario? As we can see from the 400 million people slaughtered by governments in the 20th century…nothing keeps them in check. Nothing but other psychos and the basic laws of nature.

No serious anarcho-libertarian is claiming that the second scenario will be utopia—only that it will be better, and that it will not suffer from the fundamental moral problem of all involuntary governance: the violation of individual human consent.

In a condition of market anarchism, psychos will still exist. Market forces are not a perfect solution to keep them in check—only a better solution. Without the power to tax, print money, compel obedience, and conscript slave soldiers—all while being granted the presumption of legitimacy—their ability to do harm is significantly limited.

From this point, you simply must explore, with an open mind and honest heart, the literature explaining how market anarchism has worked in the past, is working in small ways now, and can work at scale in future. Instead of allowing the voice of our overlords to speak through ours, we should approach the question with an earnest desire to evolve out of this morally impermissible scenario we are in.

Stop surrendering!

There are a lot of other angles we can take in response to various concerns. (One that just occurred to me: Do you notice how it’s always the other guy who will keep anarchism from working? I and my fellows can cooperate just fine—but there are some who simply won’t. This has some truth to it, of course. There really are subsets of bad apples who will do their level best to spoil any barrel. Yet there is fodder for future discussion about this persistent notion that it’s not me; it’s the other guy.)

Those who have to wait for another time. For now, there is a simpler message I want to get across.

If you fall into the category of people who

1. Understand the fundamental moral flaw of involuntary governance,

2. Recognize the inevitability that psychopaths will seek power, and

3. Have honestly looked into the concept of market anarchism, but

4. Do not believe we can get by without involuntary governance,

I have a simple question:

Why are you conceding automatic, inescapable power to psychopaths right out of the gate?

Put another way: Why are you surrendering without even trying anything else?

You get the problem. But instead of trying a better solution, you are just giving up: Psychos will always exist, so we might as well give psychos complete power.

(And then, equally tragic: Voting will save us.)

I understand the source of your concerns, fears, and objections. I used to share them. I am not angry.

But do you see the flaw here? You are taking a position that condemns the human race to endless rule by psychos. Your jaundiced view of humanity, whether justified or not, is dooming us to endless oppression.

Even if that jaundiced view is justified, it makes no logical sense to create or accept a government that is run, to disproportionate degrees, by the most rotten among us. Especially when there are alternative ways to create order—ways that do not suffer from the same moral and practical problems as involuntary governance.

In essence, this view announces the worst black-pilled belief of all: that humanity’s situation is utterly hopeless.

Here, psychopaths, rule over us. We’re not even going to try anything else. Nothing else will ever work. The good people of the human race will never win. The good people of the human race CAN never win.

Is that really the position you want to take? For your children’s children? For all time?

Not me. I am done living on my knees.

I might not be able to resist them fully, but I will be damned if I keep saying that endless slavery is the only condition possible to mankind, forever. I will be damned if I keep saying that I, and every other human on the planet, is a slave in need of masters—now and forever more.

This ex ante surrender, this laying down without a fight, this failure to even try comes from a recognizable and understandable place. As I said, I shared it for many years. But I have never been more horrified by it, or ashamed that I ever believed it, than I am right now. And I believe that if you see it now with fresh eyes, you might suddenly feel the same.

Jim in Alaska nicely described our budding distributed nation as “flourishing in the cracks within and twixt existing societies.” That is likely all that is possible in the short run. We will grow over time.

Instead of saying “the majority will never support us,” we can simply ignore them and set off on our own course. Why would we let what the majority, and what they will or won’t do, stop us?

The majority are security-loving losers who will make things difficult for us.

Yeah, so? So we don’t even try? So we just accept that we will be victims of the idiot masses forever? That the only system that will ever work to stop their grasping, their busybodying, and their craven compliance is a system that rewards and empowers all those traits? How does that make any sense?

Psychopaths will always exist and seek power.

Yeah, so? So we don’t even try? So we just grant them that power without ever even trying something new?

No.

We are the ones who try.

---

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 | 1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.16 | 2.17 | 2.XX | 2.18 | 2.19 | 2.20 | 2.21 | | Where: 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 3.10 | 3.11 | 3.12 | 3.13 || Who: 4.0 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.XX | 4.XY | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.10 | 4.11 | 4.12 | 4.XZ | 4.13 | 4.YX | 4.14