We are taught in holy writ that “when we undertake…to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves”. Also, that “it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” That is because to control or dominate over another unrighteously is evil, and where evil is, God is not. It is my belief that political anarchy is the absence of this “unrighteous dominion”. I am completely aware of the objections that such a statement of belief as this may create. As I will show, these objections are misdirected, the word anarchy has been misused in contemporary thought, and a state of political anarchy is actually desirable for a righteous people.
Anarchy and Tyranny
From politicians to religious leaders, anarchy has been used synonymously with chaos, confusion and tyranny. John Adams, one of the founding fathers of America used it thus, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” And former President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Joseph Fielding Smith said, “The Constitution is our assurance against anarchy and despotism.” Now, I don’t blame the users of this word for their misuse, the misuse of the word anarchy is commonplace. But I also feel that if we are to understand the important contributions made to advancing the cause of liberty by libertarian anarchists such as Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Hoppe, we must have a correct understanding of the word anarchy itself, as well as the way in which these theorist employ it.
Political Anarchy Defined
As I will now demonstrate considering the foregoing, anarchy is one of those words that has taken on a meaning wholly absent from its etymological construction. This word is comprised of two parts: an-, meaning “without” and -archy, meaning “a ruler”, which comes from the Greek -arkhon, meaning “ruler” and -arkein, meaning “to rule”. Anarchy, therefore, means “without a ruler”. By comparison, monarchy means “a single ruler”, minarchy means “minimal rule”, and autarchy means “self-rule”. There is nothing inherently objectionable to the word anarchy. What do we understand is “a ruler”? A ruler must be contrasted to a leader. The difference between these two is consent: a ruler rules without the consent of the ruled, or in other words, exercises unrighteous dominion, whereas a leader leads with the consent of his followers. Political anarchy, then, can accurately be defined as “without, or the absence of, unrighteous dominion”.
Does Political Anarchy Work?
Many proponents of liberty have an incorrect understanding of political anarchy, as I have shown. Those that have an understanding of political anarchy closer to its real meaning oppose it on the grounds that “it won’t work”. To believe that political anarchy “won’t work” is akin to believing that peace or liberty won’t work. It’s not a matter of what works or not. It’s only a matter of desiring the absence of unrighteous dominion, because it is true that for the peace and liberty-lover, unrighteous dominion does not work.
Unrighteous Dominion
Men such as John Adams and Joseph Fielding Smith use anarchy incorrectly (technically). It is true that a state of political anarchy can pave the way for someone bent on exercising unrighteous dominion, to rule over others. But as soon as that were to happen, the people now being ruled over would no longer be in a state of political anarchy. They would then be under any number of forms of rule. If the ruler ruled tyrannically, they would be under a rule of tyranny, desiring, I am sure, a return to political anarchy. As then the tyranny, or unrighteous dominion, would cease. Put another way, where unrighteous dominion exists, political anarchy is absent, and the inverse, where political anarchy exists, unrighteous dominion is absent. This is the framework used by liberty-loving political-anarchy-theorists like Spooner and Rothbard. It is also this framework that I believe those who desire peace and liberty, and fight against the use of unrighteous dominion, are in a true sense political anarchists.
Conclusion
The purpose of writing this short essay was to clarify a misunderstanding that I believe separates peace and liberty-lovers from their like-minded political-anarchy-theorists. Though there may be some whose desire for political anarchy is merely a step towards establishing their own form of unrighteous dominion, this is not a flaw of political anarchy. This is a flaw of those men. The word anarchy is understood erroneously by the common person, and so labeling oneself an anarchist will not help one’s image or message, I have found. To the common person, I am simply a “liberty-lover”, or as Walter Block has put it, I desire that you “keep your mitts to yourself,” and I will keep mine to myself. I want to live in a free society, free from unrighteous dominion. I believe Heaven is this way, and so exists in a state of political anarchy.
I appreciate the sentiment you’re expressing but I would have to respectfully disagree that, according to your definition, that heaven is an anarchy. It most definitely is a monarchy presided over by a King and administered through lesser kings.
D&C 76:56–57 says of the inhabitants of the celestial kingdom:
“They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory…”
Revelation 5:10 echoes this, saying this about the heirs of exaltation:
“…And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”
There most definitely is a Ruler in heaven and he delegates authority in his kingdom to the righteous through the priesthood. Exalted children of our Heavenly Father will reign in a very literal sense over his creations by investiture of divine authority.
To suggest that heaven is a “libertarian” paradise where you can do what you want and others can do what they want would be incorrect. There is nothing in heaven (the celestial kingdom) that does not do God’s will. You’ll never find a difference of opinion between the Father and the Son. Neither will you find any difference of opinion between exalted beings. The myriad kingdoms beneath the celestial glory is where those souls abide who are not one with the mind of God.
In this sense, our Father is an absolute ruler. There are no dissenting voices in his kingdom. God’s subjective reality is objective reality, without any dissimilarity between the two. When we fully embrace all truth, our view become the same as his. The challenge is for every single human to discover truth, embrace it, and apply it without measure. We are only capable of truly governing ourselves when there is no longer any darkness in us whatsoever. In that state, there is no disharmony between heaven’s King and his subjects.
G West.
If our Heavenly Father is not exercising unrighteous dominion in his sphere of stewardship, then it can still be considered anarchy. Is he leading by example or using force?
If men were angels….. but they are not, therefore we must bind them down by the Constitution. But there goes our political anarchy as well.
See: http://www.ldsfreemen.com/its-major-flaw-notwithstanding/
Pingback: The Bill of Rights and Political Anarchy | LDS Freemen
The problem with this whole article can be spotted in the title…
Political anarchy as you define it is the absence of something rather than the presence of something. It is in this sense “negative” and its notoriously difficult… Nay, impossible… to bring a negative into existence.
The only way to displace something is to put a different thing in its place.
Your defense “To believe that political anarchy “won’t work” is akin to believing that peace or liberty won’t work.” is really quite absurd. The nature of the constitution is such that it is enforceable as a social contract. Your link to “Its major flaw notwithstanding” only serves to further undermine the defense of political anarchy you put forth here. (BTW its called a strawman when you pretend to adopt a position you don’t actually hold for the sake of defeating it in an argument – and they often blow up in your face just like this.)
You have offered no “positive” (ie. “enforceable”) alternative as a replacement for the unrighteous dominion which you decry. Indeed from your other writings one can deduce that your definition of political anarchy requires that it be unenforceable.
But the problems with political anarchy are worse than that. This idea is not even something that can be maintained after voluntarily brought into being as an unenforceable social contract because under your way of thinking people always have the right to opt out (as in your piece “defend the state defend socialism”). No decision (such as ratifying the constitution) appears to ever have permanence under your version of political anarchy.
Your logic may be impeccable Skyler, but it is almost completely divorced from both reality and reason.
the truth, Skyler … the truth, not logic… will set you free if freedom is what you desire.
And the truth which is relevant here is this, just as you have said:
“it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”
almost all men… that is to say 999 out of 1000, or 99 out of 100 or if you want to be really optimistic 9 out of 10 human beings will will turn to unrighteous dominion. If you cant find a solution for that you cant make any sort of practical case for political anarchy.
Many of us see the US Constitution which (though perhaps not perfect is at least an enforceable social contract under which decisions have permanence) as a workable alternative to unreachable philisophical ideals. Oh yeah and the scriptures speak highly of it too.
Why dont you give it another look?
regards,
Jeff
Jeff,
It’s important that I’m not misunderstood.
First, I never said anything about the difficulty in bringing political anarchy “into existence”. Anarchy is the absence of something, as is peace, liberty, cold, dark, etc. That doesn’t mean it’s unworthy of our striven efforts, just like peace or liberty. Will we ever reach political peace? Probably not, that’s mortality. But it’s a worthy effort, just as I believe obtaining political anarchy, the absence of unrighteous dominion, is. Be sure to read my follow up article on political anarchy and the Bill of Rights.
Second, this article wasn’t concerned with offering “alternatives” to the state, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in any or that any haven’t been offered. There’s a vast and growing body of work on the concept of “anarcho-capitalism”. The purpose of this article was to familiarize others with the way in which these theorist use the word “anarchy”, ie. in it’s proper form. I want to help bridge the gap between those who have an incorrect understanding of anarchy and those who are some of liberty’s greatest defenders. I speak of Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Walter Block, and the like. A great FAQ on anarcho-capitalism can be found here: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html. That site also contains links to some very good resources.
Third, anarchism, at least anarcho-capitalism, respects contracts. Those violating the terms of a contract are initiating aggression, and it is therefore justified for the violated party to engage in retaliatory aggression to seek justice. Rather than this being done by a state, it would be done by a private defense agency, and private courts. Again, there’s a growing body of work on anarcho-capitalist theory. It’s well worth educating yourself on it.
Fourth, my article on the major flaw in the Constitution wasn’t a straw man. My concession to Constitutionalists that the Constitution should be regarded as scripture was to demonstrate a “so what?” argument in support of my central point. That’s all.
Fifth, history has amply demonstrated that it is the Constitution, as well as other forms of the state, that is an “unreachable philosophical ideal”, not political anarchy. (Of which there’s centuries of evidence for it’s viability, including subsets within a state, as in the Bill of Rights.) As for logic, if it is impeccable (which not even I claim, but thank you) than it is in harmony with truth.
I look forward to your response and hope you’ll consider browsing the links I’ve shared. Consider it an educational endeavor.
Skyler.
I don’t think I misunderstood you, you are focused on the negative (that which is absent). In your first two points you lead by telling me what you *haven’t* said, and follow up by reminding me that you aren’t offering alternatives to the state (though you apparently believe in some alternative, you wont say what it is. You only refer to it obliquely, and ironically by means of a double negative).
You say political anarchy is worth the “effort” but I see nothing presented toward which anyone may strive. As far as I can see you are only presenting ideas, and theoretical, abstract ones at that.
I think you would do well to start telling people what you DO believe. In my opinion that would be a much better use of everyone’s time, allow for much more pursuasive (ie productive) arguements, and it wont leave your readers with the feeling that you have taken up their band width without really saying anything.
Speaking further to your second point, I can understand why you would write a piece solely to familiarize more people with the theoretical usage of the word “anarchy”. Though something about your style seems to me a bit corrective to the ordinary reader.
When you makestatements like “Many proponents of liberty have an incorrect understanding of political anarchy, as I have shown.” you appear to be pointing out differences (ie your are telling people they are wrong) despite your stated goal of “bridging the gap.” These sorts of statements are not very effective at emphasizing beliefs which you and your readers may already share, and one charge of “you are wrong” will be more memorable to readers than two illustrations of common principles.
I am familiar with some of the writings of Murray Rothbard and what I’ve read I have no reason to argue with. The man seems to have been a scholar of the first order. I am only slightly more than passingly familiar with the principles of anarcho-capitalism in general, but I’m not inclined to opposed to it on any ideologocal grounds, I just havent seen you make any “practical” argument relating to it that would convince me of anything.
(As a side note I really enjoyed ashort story called ‘The Ungoverned’ by Vernor Vinge. I imagine you are familiar with it since it illustrates private security/justice possibilities… for any who have not heard of it, google it. its an arguement for the 2nd ammendment writ very very large.)
I am aware that anarcho-capitalism respects contracts as you say, but your “defend the state, defend socialiam” seems to suggest that the right of the individual to contract does not extend to the creation of a permanent social contract among a whole people which has the power to bind an individual against his will after that individual becomes a party to said social contract (such as the US constitution).
Furthermore that piece conflates social contract with socialism – a grave error. It also accepts uncritically the stated purpose of socialism as wealth redistribution, which would be bad enough if it were true. But in fact the true purpose of socialism is to be a smoke screen for a two tiered system (a hidden oligarchy) which intends to control all of human activity at every level and in every sphere. (hopefully I will find time to comment on “defend the state, defend socialiam” separately in the future)
In response to your fourth point it really IS a straw man, because whether or not the constitution requires that “men be angels” is not relevant to whether the constitution should be treated as cannonized scripture or as graffiti on a restroom wall. You could have made your point about men and angels without bringing up the Benson quote. The way that you brought it up (saying in effect “even if this were true” right before pointing out supposed flaws) suggests that your piece was intended to reduce the spiritual weight that readers place on the constitution.
… I’m not saying whether the conclusions you reach are right or wrong, I’m just saying… that’s a strawman. (Your conclusions are wrong, or at best incomplete, but to explain why I’ll have to leave a comment directly on that piece when time allows)
On your fifth point I guess I’ll just have to admit you are smarter than me, as I am woefully unaware of the centurys long evidence for the viability of political anarchy as wwell as the ample historical demonstration of the constitution as an unreachable philosophical ideal. Perhaps others of your readers labor under this same disadvantage and could, like myself, benefit from from some exposition that you might deign to provide.
As for your logic I mispoke in my prior comment. I used the phrase “may be” with the intention of allowing for the possibility of impecable logic (a bit of puffery really). Perhaps I should have used the phrase “might be” instead.
Logic is a tool … just like rhetoric … just like a hammer or a saw. They can be used to build (ideas or structures) just as easily as to destroy them … perhaps more easily to destroy. It’s the intent and the skill of the weilder that determines the uses to which tools are put, as well as the quality of the final outcomes.
Thank you for providing links. Sadly my time is limited and its not likely I will follow them too deeply. Right now I prefer to take my education by forming my own thoughts and crashing them into other people’s, then seeing where the peices fall and starting over. I forsee that our polemics will educate me more completely than your links. But thnk you all the same.
I have read your piece about the bill of rights and I found much there that I can agree with in your assesment (its concrete you see… I like that) and I intend to comment (I know… promises, promises).
All the best to you and yours, and please do reply.
Jeff
Jeff,
Thank you for the long reply. I love feedback, especially constructive feedback as I believe you have provided.
The purpose of this piece was, how do you say, to plant seeds on the concept of anarchy, as Rothbard et al employ it. It would have been nice to have also included elaboration on the concept of anarcho-capitalism, and I’ll probably be writing on that in the future, but these articles aren’t to be too long. I explained the concept and left names. Anyone interested in exploring it further had at least names to use.
I am also not any sort of expert writer. I’m sure there’s all sorts of ways the article could have been written that would have been better. I’ll learn those as I receive valuable feedback and gain more experience. I am humble to this fact.
On the social contract, I’ve yet to be convinced that this is anything but a myth. It seems to me to be nothing more than “majority rule” which I object to on tyrannical grounds. A very good piece deconstructing this concept mathematically can be found here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davies/davies7.html. Also, you can use http://www.libertysearch.info (my liberty search engine) to find more on the topic from some of the best outlets on liberty.
Further, even proponents of Socialism can employ the concept of the social contract to justify their programs, and that is precisely my point. To defend the state is to defend the foundations of Socialism, which many limited government types don’t seem to realize. I wanted to help them realize that. I believe they concede too much to Socialists when defending even an ultra-minimal state.
On Socialism’s true purpose, I agree with you completely. It is a smokescreen, but it’s the smokescreen that “the people” are familiar with and many hope for. That’s why I wrote it the way I did. I wanted even minarchists to see they are defending the smokescreen. Again, these are short articles and I recognize that it probably could have been written better.
I see your point on my Major Flaw article. And it was my purpose to reduce the spiritual weight people place on the Constitution. I feel at far wiser to place spiritual weight on the principles of freedom contained within the Constitution, than the Constitution itself. It’s the principles that came from God, as per D&C 98:5.
I thought something was fishy about you saying my logic was impeccable. You’re probably very busy, but I do recommend browsing the links I’ve suggested. I appreciate our dialog.
Skyler.
I, too, think that the word anarchy has an unfortunate connotation. I am familiar with the scholars of the Mises Institute and their philosophy of anarcho-capitalism. I find that they are largely based on a solid principles, but let’s just make sure we aren’t guilty of too much “mingling”. (I hope you follow the allusion)
I think Skyler is trying to distinguish between the state and law. Anarchy, for some, means the absence of the state AND law. Anarcho-capitalists such as Block or Rothbard are not referring to the absence of law, just the absence of the state. Also, they do not imply an absence of government, just an absence of monopolistic government. I am not in full agreement with how they have applied their reason to reach these conclusions, but I do believe them sincere in their designs.
Government is not inherently evil. It is simply the fact that most men have the disposition to exercise unrighteous dominion. After all, the Priesthood is how the Father governs. That is, it is the power by which he gives law to intelligences. Government is naturally patriarchal, just as the priesthood is. Thus, that is the ideal: righteous patriarchal government. Anarcho-capitalism is not the ideal, but it is the construct of men doing their best with what they have been given in order to abide by the best principles they know. We are held to the higher standard of the gospel.
There are eternal principles which govern the ideas put forth in economics and certain philosophies. Let us discover those by study and by faith and apply them as the Lord guides us. I believe we will see how the principles that make capitalism successful will make those who abide by the laws of the Celestial Kingdom likewise prosperous.
Jeff,
According to the Book of Mormon it is not impossible to bring a negative into existence. Indeed for God it is as easy as bringing a positive into existence. The process is known as creation. And I admit I know very little about it myself but according to the word of God the only thing impossible to create or bring into existence as you say would be the all in one compound nothing/something that Lehi tells us about. If you are too busy bashing (your ideas against others) to read the links Skyler provided…cool…but you might want to read 2nd Nephi 2.
You are right in saying that truth not logic will set you free. Although you might want to capitalize the “T” in truth since you go on to attempt to bash truth against truth and set one as higher than another. That’s okay it is your self professed learning style…I respect that. Just a reminder that all truth can be circumscribed into one great whole. But as long as we are looking for fault (we will find it) let me say that while you have no fault which can be “spotted” (use your other eye…no your other one…no your other one…ok now all together…there ya go! That’s whats known as an eye single to the glory of God) while no fault can be spotted in your title since your title is a negative LOL. Ok seriously now…I’m just finding fault with your fault finding intro to your fault finding.
Well my observation is several uses of the word enforceable or unenforceable, in short many versions of the word force. I understand what you are trying to say but I believe that it is indicative of a lack of understanding. I mean we know what you mean when you use the phrase enforceable contract…we are all adults (ie. Not precisely fit for the kingdom of heaven) and we all grew up in the last days in Babylon. So don’t worry it happens to all of us, and often…failing to remember that force is the plan that the other guy proposed to us. Remember too that we are talking about IDEALS here. I see Skyler has already pointed out to you that true anarchy does most certainly and most permanently allow for social contracts (some of which you could never even imagine) but please try. It makes me chuckle as I can see/remember Skyler explaining it to you in the pre-existence before we all came to be tested in this temporary state. What you forgot? Yeah this “state” (pun intended) is temporary. And so is the U.S. and its constitution, both as a piece of paper subject to the elements and as a step in the progress of the children of God. But don’t worry any and all eternal principles therein did not emanate from the document and will not die with its passing as foretold by Jesus. So why do you seem to think that your particular thoughts on God’s thoughts have any real permanence. More importantly why are you so sure that Skyler’s lack this permanence that seems to be so important in your view. Could it be that you are confusing all time with eternity? So the very accusation of idealism and impermanence you stick to Skyler’s IDEALS seem to enable the gift of the holy ghost to kick in in defense of anarchy. Why would it be more important for us to choose the highest ideal over or at least after and in fact in addition to the “MORE perfect union” that the constitution helped to forge? Well that is kinda the whole point of this life to choose degrees of glory with boundaries set solely according to laws which are willingly obeyed.
Perhaps this FORCE you feel is lacking and so desperately needed in your mind and reality, is The Force. The only one, true, living force in the universe…It is referred to by different names in the scriptures, Love, Priesthood etc. I have spent a lot of time bringing up things which were more than likely very far from your mind when writing this and I will admit I feel compelled (never exactly a good feeling) to step up when I hear that bullying tone…even and especially when its subtle..BUT let me call your attention to the “positive” since that is what you like. To your everlasting credit your heart showed itself to be in the “right” place (right brain surfacing) right in the middle of the murkiest part of your arguments. (that would be the parts proceeding the part where Skyler’s supposed straw man blew up in his face, BTW I didn’t hear the big bang but anyway) Here you say:
But the problems with political anarchy are worse than that. This idea is not even something that can be maintained after VOLUNTARILY brought into being as an unenforceable social contract because under your way of thinking PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT to opt out (as in your piece “defend the state defend socialism”). No decision (such as ratifying the constitution) appears to ever have permanence under your version of political anarchy.
I highlighted what I considered to be the best parts of your words. If you take another look as you have counciled your brother Skyler to do you will see/hear/feel the deep and eternal importance of those key words. They kind of remind me of the Declaration of Independence and other more ancient writings. I perceive that the element you think is missing in Skyler’s “reasoning” is FAITH. And faith, the obtaining of and enduring in is a personal matter. Keep your heart soft my brother.
One Love,
Elder Chantdown
Liberty, not license comes from a particular aspect of actual Protestantism (Mormons not included) — more Wesleyan and American then Calvinist and foreign–that is ingrained in a character that possesses the law from within, not without –and therefore understands the spirit of the law.