Lew Rockwell on anarchy

Is it possible that we have likewise assumed that the state is inevitable only because we are used to it, and can hardly imagine a world without it?  Just as the menial tasks once performed by slaves are now distributed differently among free men, perhaps, as anarchists argue, the functions of the state could be distributed among voluntary agencies.

The Renaissance philosopher Thomas Hobbes thought that anarchy — the “state of nature” — would be “a war of all against all,” making human life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  His solution was the state, which would quell quarrels among men.  He didn’t foresee that the state itself might aggravate conflict and make social order far more miserable than anarchy could ever be.

Hobbes’s near-contemporary John Locke offered a more attractive alternative: the limited state, which would have the power to secure men’s natural rights but would lack the power to violate them.  But such a state has never existed for long.  Once a monopoly of power exists at all, it tends to degenerate into tyranny; anarchists argue that this decline is inevitable, because tyranny is inherent in the very nature of the state.

~ Lew Rockwell, "The Heroic Joe Sobran," LewRockwell.com, March 4, 2024

Murray Rothbard on order vs. chaos

Another critical dispute between traditionalists and libertarians is over the role and the nature of order.  To the traditionalist, order is the overriding consideration, and order can only be achieved by a massive imposition of state coercion.  To the traditionalist, liberty is arrant chaos and disorder, and the libertarian is someone who wishes to sacrifice order on the altar of liberty.  The libertarian, on the contrary, has a diametrically opposed view.  To him, the only genuine order among men proceeds out of free and voluntary interaction: a lasting order that emerges out of liberty rather than by suppressing it.  With Proudhon [considered by many to be the "father of anarchism"], the libertarian hails Liberty as the "Mother, not the Daughter of Order."  In this way, the libertarian sees the harmonious interaction of free people as akin to the harmonious interaction of natural entities that is summed up as "natural law."

State coercion, on the other hand, is viewed by the libertarian as a pseudo-order which actually results in disorder and chaos.  State-imposed order is "artificial" and destructive of the harmony provided by following the natural order.  Economic science has long shown that individuals, pursuing their own interests in the marketplace, will benefit everyone.  The free market has been shown to be the only genuine economic order, while state coercion hampering that market only subverts genuine order and causes dislocation, general impoverishment and, eventually, economic chaos.  Moreover, one of our most distinguished free-market economists, F.A. Hayek, has extended the concept of what he has trenchantly termed "spontaneous order" to include many other activities than the economic sphere.  Hayek has pointed out that the evolution of human language itself was not imposed by coercion from above but emerged from the free and voluntary interaction of individual persons.  To use a phrase of Hayek's language, the origin of money, and the market itself were products or byproducts of human action, not human design.

~ Murray Rothbard, "Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian," originally published in Modern Age, Fall 1981, pp. 16-17

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

George F. Smith on order vs. chaos, statism and the free market

In most circles the fact of government’s necessity is never mentioned but always assumed. Thus, the push for reforms, to get better people in positions of authority, to pass needed legislation on top of the mountains that already exist. Always — work within the system. Don’t rock the boat. Our foundations are still solid. Rarely does anyone call into question the need for government-as-we-know-it — the State.

Does the State’s virus management give you confidence it’s acting in your best interest? For me, it’s like something out of Orwell or Nazi Germany. 

Without the State there would be chaos, we’re told. What do we have today, if not chaos? I haven’t even mentioned the riots going on, where people defending themselves are charged with serious crimes. The rioters hate the police, and seeing the police stand down, peaceful people now fear for their lives and load up on guns. 

And now we’re being hit with black lives matter and only black lives matter. It is no longer a fringe movement. It exists virtually unchallenged. No one, no matter their race, can live long under that slogan.

We already have a government we can live with. It’s called the free market but it’s been sabotaged by the State. It’s locked down, meaning not allowed to operate. We need to set it free.

~ George F. Smith, "The One Lockdown That's Killing Us," LewRockwell.com, October 9, 2020

Robert Murphy on the warlord objection to anarcho capitalism

When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair.  It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens who live under limited government.  The anarchist doesn’t deny that life might be better in society B.  What the anarchist does claim is that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse.  The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society.

[...]

The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded.  In those communities where such an outcome would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help.  Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government.

~ Robert Murphy, "But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?," Mises.org, July 7, 2005

Robert Higgs on anarchy vs. statism

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state.  Anarchy's mayhem is purely conjectural; the state's mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

~ Robert Higgs

Joseph Sobran on order vs. chaos

The measure of the state's success is that the word anarchy frightens people while the word state does not.

~ Joseph Sobran

Kevin Duffy on anarchy

Critics of anarchy have cause and effect backwards.  Government reflects the morality of the people. To the extent they advocate violence to solve problems, the state will exist and grow.  If they reject violence, the state will shrink.  If they reject violence entirely, the state will wither up and die.  Yet we are told that a society with such high moral standards would devolve into chaos.  Makes no sense.

~ Kevin Duffy, November 6, 2018

Doug Casey makes the case for anarchy

There are very few things a government should do. That’s because the essence of government is force. And, in a civilized society, force should be kept to a minimum. So the only legitimate function of government is to protect you from force. Which implies an army to protect you from violence from outside of its borders, police to protect you inside of its borders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without violence.

But those three functions are actually far too important to be left to the state or the kind of people that inevitably go to work for it. So the only three things that it can legitimately do are the very three things that are too important to trust it with. It’s almost a contradiction of terms. In point of fact, there’s nothing the State does that shouldn’t be left to entrepreneurs and a voluntary market.

~ Doug Casey, "Doug Casey on Globalism and the Worldwide Populist Revolt," LewRockwell.com, November 25, 2016

Jeff Berwick on anarchy vs. slavery

All the word "anarchy" means is no rulers.  So, if you say you are not an anarchist it means you want a ruler.  If you want a ruler you are a slave.  I'm surprised how many people are comfortable publicly identifying themselves as slaves.

~ Jeff Berwick

Irving Fisher admits socialist sympathies to Yale Socialist Club, 1941

I believe [William Graham Sumner] was one of the greatest professors we ever had at Yale, but I have drawn far away from his point of view, that of the old laissez faire doctrine.

I remember he said in his classroom: "Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist."

That amused his class very much, for he was as far from a revolutionary as you could expect. But I would like to say that if that time comes when there are two great parties, Anarchists and Socialists, then I am a Socialist.

~ Irving Fisher, in a speech to the Yale Socialist Club in 1941, as quoted in the biography My Father, Irving Fisher, p. 44

Patrick Henry on the principles of civilized society

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.

~ Patrick Henry

Frederic Bastiat on socialist objections to anti-statists

"… every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850, from the section titled "A Confusion of Terms"

Émile Faguet on anarchy

An anarchist is an uncomprimising liberal.

~ Émile Faguet

Walter on trusting men vs. government

Many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no men can be trusted to look after anyone else.

~ Nicolas Walter, About Anarchism