Saturday, 02 November 2002

Last week I wrote a few paragraphs about anarchy, mainly as a rejoinder to Eric Raymond's essay on why he prefers anarchy to democracy. As a form of government, anarchy appeals to those who believe that individual liberty is the cornerstone of civilization, and that, ultimately, each citizen is responsible for securing and protecting his or her own rights. It's a worldview reflected in the writings of Ayn Rand and Henry David Thoreau, and summarized by the old saying "That government is best which governs least." It's a world where there is no government, because it isn't necessary to have one; it suggests that men should be ruled by reason, and that our ultimate society is one where they are.

My argument against anarchy is that it fails the practical test: In the gap between what can be and what is, anarchy stumbles and falls. No one in their right mind would propose that we topple Saddam Hussein's government and replace it with anarchy, because we recognize that anarchy is a fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda—much more so than Saddam's Iraq, in fact.

The anarchist utopia is one where men are ruled by reason, at all times, and in all causes. There are no irrational actors, or they're in such small number that they can be dispensed without trouble. There are no issues and no causes that inspire their believers to a passionate fervor which reason alone fails to justify: There is no zealotry, bigotry, superstition, or irrational exuberance, and there certainly aren't any True Believers who choose their actions in this life on the premise of a reward in the next one.

I don't think we can get to the anarchist utopia from here. I think that any proposal for how men should be governed (including "not at all") should address how that system deals with irrational actors; at best anarchy hand-waves them away, or confidently asserts that they're a diminishing force over time. I'll agree that science and reason have made great strides, but to believe that all human behavior will eventually succumb to reason is folly. It's the same belief that mathematicians had, until Gödel proved them wrong; no matter how elaborate your system of logic is, there will always be something beyond it.

Traditional left-wing thinking fails to address the problem of Al Qaeda, because it asserts that all worldviews are equally rational and sensible, that accepting a particular worldview is a question of validating the viewer's perspective, and that it's elitist, imperialist and wrong to invalidate someone else's perspective. It tries to solve Al Qaeda by accepting Al Qaeda, which the right (and most of the center) finds morally repugnant.

Traditional right-wing thinking fails to address the problem of Al Qaeda, because it asserts that its worldview is the only rational way to view the world, that all other views are misguided or insane, and that eventually everyone else will come around to the right way of thinking. It tries to solve Al Qaeda by treating it as an aberration, as a small group of bandits and madmen that can be solved by hunting down the individuals and reforming the ideology that produced them. That these efforts may actually refresh Al Qaeda's pool of believers rather than drain it is impossible, of course, because Al Qaeda is an isolated group which sprang up fully formed from the sands of Arabia in late 2001, did not exist previously, and will cease to exist after we've drained the swamp.

Traditional libertarian/anarchist thinking fails to address the problem of Al Qaeda, because it asserts that everyone should find their own worldview and not try to impose their views upon others—which, as Eric Raymond puts it, petulantly ignores Al Qaeda. When the horde of True Believers arrives at your doorstep and demands that you convert to the One True Religion, I think most anarchists will suddenly rediscover the value of government as a means of common defense. Maybe you can defend yourself so well that a rational person wouldn't attack you, but the True Believers aren't rational: To them, mutual death would mean that you'll be their valet in the afterlife, so they're more than prepared to die in droves if it means taking you down with them.

I'm using Al Qaeda in these examples because it's a particularly current and relevant test; I could just as easily use Crusaders, McCarthyists, the Salem Witch Trials or any other group of irrational actors. Anarchy is doomed to failure when applied to the real world, because it requires as a first postulate that humans are ruled by reason and will behave rationally; practical experience suggests that this assertion is hopelessly optimistic.

(sigh) Once again I've set out to write the case for democracy, and instead written several paragraphs making the case against anarchy. It's so much easier to write about something you're against, and poke holes in the other guy's argument, than to write what you stand for and make an argument with no holes in it. Next time I'll only make the case for democracy, and let someone else poke the holes.

- Posted by Scott Forbes at 9:34 pm. comments.