Topics
[Click on radio buttons or press assigned key with Ctrl (Mac) or Alt (Win)]
[a] Individualist Anarchism
[b] Philosophical Egoism
[c] Other Egoist Sites
[d] More Anti-Statism
[e] Anarchism and Feminism
[f] Anti-war Propaganda
[g] Civilian-Based Defense
[h] Major anarchist resources on the web
[i] Libertarianism, etc. on the web
[j] The "Austrian School" of Economics
[k] The Loyal Opposition
[l] The HIV=AIDS Controversy
[m] Thoughts of School
[n] Odd Bins
[o] Search Engines
Objections #3 to Anarchism
From the archives of The Memory Hole

Objection #3

OBJECTION #3: The use of force, even retaliatory force, cannot be left to the discretion of individuals. Peaceful co-existence is impossible if people have to worry constantly about their neighbors clubbing them at any moment.

ANSWER: There are several implied fallacies in this objection:
1) that in a system of non-coercive or natural justice, that is, in an anarchist world, people will naturally degenerate into vile creatures and turn on their neighbors. There will be a war of all against all. (See Objection #4.)
2) that people will quite naturally turn to the club as the foundation of all their social relationships. Violence is viewed as the most effective method of securing valuable human relationships.
3) Leaving retaliatory force in the government's hands will insure that it will be used only as retaliatory force, and when it is administered, it will be done so justly.
As anarchists, we say with Benjamin Tucker: "the State takes advantage of its monopoly of defence to furnish invasion instead of protection." Because we rightly fear power in anyone's hands, we recognize the foolhardiness of establishing a government with a monopoly of power and then expecting that government not to abuse that power. If it's dangerous to allow individuals to protect themselves, how much more dangerous it is to give that power to government.

✳ ✳ ✳