The Obviousness of Anarchy

Advocates for liberty confront issue after issue, day after day. This is like shooing angry wasps. The problem is the nest. We can tolerate the nest and continue to be stung, or we can solve the problem.

It is necessary to deal with the problem of the state, and not merely the endless symptoms of its existence. One way to gain perspective is to recognize the absurdity of tolerating the state.

If people were ever to seriously question whether government actions are really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse. However, people support government for reasons besides a belief in its necessity for order.

States create dependency through social and corporate welfare, use fear to induce submission, and foster nationalism to appeal to the need for identity. These efforts condition people to accept and embrace the state.

People also use the state to do “legally” what they know would be wrong if they acted directly.

The moral case for anarchy is more compelling than the practical one. It makes irrelevant the fallacious rationalizations of the need for the state. It invites recognition of the evil of the state and the need to end the institution.

The state lives on plunder and relies on violence and the threat of violence. Only through fraud can it hide its essence. It is simply a criminal organization with a false claim to legitimacy. The state daily displays its predatory nature; we merely have to view it with open eyes to see the truth.

If the case for anarchy is obvious on both practical and moral grounds, then the state is both unnecessary and immoral. Tolerating the state is absurd.

The absurdity is illustrated by the manner in which people relate to the state, in light of its actual nature as a criminal organization. Consider these examples.

People debate the purpose of government, as though government has any purpose other than to serve itself and its cronies. They call for limited government, as though a degree of criminal oppression were desirable, and as if criminals, once empowered, could be constrained. They debate public policy, expecting a criminal organization to meet the needs of the public.

They claim that we consent to be governed, government is our servant, and “we are the government.” This would mean that we consent to domination by criminals, the criminals serve us, and we are part of the criminal enterprise.

They give money to politicians, financing criminal contenders. They enjoy politics, seeing competition among criminals as entertainment. They vote, encouraging the criminal enterprise. They make demands of government, begging the criminals for favours.

They call elected officials “leaders,” but leadership does not come at the point of a gun. They refer to officials as “lawmakers,” but the state issues mere legislation. They scold that “we get the government we deserve,” as though victims of crime share collective guilt.

They speak of restoring faith in government, as if there can be any faith. They call for reform of government, when what is needed is its termination. They call for “good government,” but what is evil cannot be rendered good.

They tell us we should “respect the office,” but an illegitimate office warrants no respect. They refer to government’s good intentions, but its intentions are always to coerce.

They call for “fair” taxes, as if theft could ever be fair. They fret that the state should balance its budget, meaning that its plunder should equal its spending. When plunder exceeds spending, they delight in the surplus.

They worry about government debt, and call it “our debt.” They oppose waste of “taxpayer money,” expecting criminals to apply stolen funds for the benefit of their victims.

They send their children to government schools, selecting communities on this basis. The schools — prisons — indoctrinate the children, teach them to conform, and discourage their creativity. The children learn to accept and fear the state, just as their parents did.

They praise the police, the state’s bullies. They applaud the military for “preserving our freedom,” as war steals their liberty. They view the state as protector, while the state views them as prey.

We can daily observe the absurdity of tolerating the state. When people say “government,” hear “criminal.”

Conclusion
The illusion of the state’s legitimacy is a fog, a fog we can dispel with the gift of truth. Tolerating the state is not only absurd; it is also degrading and immoral.