As my political acumen has matured over the past few years, I have come to realize how the non-aggression principle dictates which side of the fence I fall on with regard to political issues. For instance, in all issues of marriage, substance use, etc, I say: you do your thing, I’ll do mine, and as long as we don’t infringe upon (or aggress against) each other, so be it. However, there is one thing which I cannot bring myself to renounce, but which I also cannot rectify with this principle – that is, the state itself.
The opposite of the existence of the state (or government) is anarchy (or, no government). Before I go on, allow me to clarify a personal matter that could cause confusion. I do call myself an “Anarch” – this is on both my car and motorcycle license plates, as well as a sort of “alter-ego” or moniker I have begun to use around the e-parts. An Anarch is a sovereign individual, one who recognizes no other individual (on this earth) as having power over himself (regardless of whether they have the ability to exercise force). Rand fans – or Objectivists – may appreciate this philosophy. Note that this is different from an anarchist, which is one who advocates anarchy.
That said, I must admit, I have toyed with the idea of anarchy, or the abolition of the state. As Stefan Molyneux, the modern-day champion of anarchy, says: when you have a cancer, it is not optimal to cut off part of the cancer so that only a small bit remains – you want to cut it all off. In truth I believe anarchy would be “the Utopian social construct” – a title many (quite errantly, in my opinion) claim for socialism. However, my logic with regards to anarchy quickly came back to its senses, and here’s why.
Anarchy – which offers no police and no courts, mind you – basically offers three solutions as a means of recourse (and for the sake of argument, I will include breach of contract as “aggression” – that is, civil offenders are categorized as criminals).
- Ostracism. In this theory, aggressors (or “criminals”) are shunned by, at a minimum, the “victim”, but ideally, by the community as a whole. In this way, the community shows that aggression will not be tolerated, and the criminal is forced to move elsewhere to conduct business or transactions, and therefore to live. The problem: what is to stop Mr. A from cheating Mr. B out of 10 million dollars and then moving across the continent to happily retire in another community?
- DROs. Here, each individual would hire what is called a “DRO” (dispute resolution organization), and these DROs would conduct independent investigations into the matter and then convene on a verdict. This is basically private, collective, binding arbitration. There are multiple problems here, though. Wouldn’t each DRO be partial towards their own client, since they too are in the business of making money and based upon their decision, their client might choose to find a new DRO next time? And, what if an individual refuses their opposition DRO’s jurisdiction, or refuses to participate in the DRO process in the first place?
- Retribution. In this scenario, you find recourse at your own discretion. You are advised to carry a bigger gun than your adversary or hire your own police force. I will not even begin to delve into the problems with this idea here, as it is clearly uncivilized madness.
We already know that a monolithic state infringes on freedoms. We can clearly see that there are unsolved problems with the logic of anarchy, and it would be naive to work to abolish the state without a clear-cut solution to these problems. Therefore, we should work to keep the state as small as possible, retaining it only for the benefits of collective defense and impartial arbitration. This is known as minarchy. Minarchists, such as myself, advocate the use of the state only for the army, the police, and the courts. However, I still have not dealt with my earlier conflict – that the advocacy of a state is in direct opposition to the non-aggression principle.
First, let us demonstrate why this is so. The existence of a state implies the necessity of – drumroll, please – taxes. Taxes must be used to fund the defense and the courts, as well as their administrators (the government). Taxes, of course, must be taken from the citizens of the state. Voluntary taxes, I think we can agree, are an oxymoron. Most would choose not to pay any taxes, assuming (or hoping) that others would pick up the slack. We are left, then, with involuntary taxation, which is a euphemism for “theft”. Theft is no doubt a form of aggression, and the alternative to paying your taxes is either to be imprisoned or killed.
So, how can one reconcile the principle of non-aggression with the advocacy of minarchy? Ah, we arrive at the crux of the debate. And the answer is: the two cannot be reconciled. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you are for the state, you are pro-aggression. If you are anti-aggression, you are against the state. I must begrudgingly choose the former, for reasons of practicability.
For me, it comes down to a question of whether to choose peaceful theft or violent theft. Polite theft or hostile theft. You can eat your pride, pay your dues, and reap the rewards of civilization – or, you can opt to go it alone, and hope you have the biggest gun in the room. Either way, we must be vigilant. We must protect ourselves from our neighbors as well as neighboring countries, or we must protect ourselves from our state. For me the choice is obvious – the gameplan is drawn up, and the greatest problem is execution – getting there.
