The State vs Anarchy

(Note: I am going to write a follow-up to this when I have more time, as it's way too easy to misunderstand what I meant. I seem to come off as an anarchist, which I'm not. - M, 9-21)

Watkins examines anarchism, and pretty much fails to debunk it. Which is unfortunate. I’m not prepared myself to debunk it, but I’ll raise a few points.

First let me say I’m no fan of the UN. However, without it we’d have anarchy between countries. Watkins seems to have no problem with this situation, as he apparently thinks we should have never involved the UN or any other countries in any part of attacking Iraq. How does this square with the following?

The anarchist resents the demand that he prove to others that his use of force is justified – he considers that a violation of his rights. What about the rights of the person he is coercing? Blank out. What about the rights of third parties, who wish to ban the use of force in their society, and would therefore like to know whether the anarchist is initiating force or retaliating? “Take my word for it,” the anarchist says.

Take my word for it was almost exactly Bush’s argument. Sometimes he’d argue that we should take Clinton’s word for it, but the general thrust was that he knew and we didn’t and the US doesn’t need anyone’s permission to act.

Watkins appears to agree that a government that doesn’t violate rights is very hard to institute. He argues that this is irrelevant. If the question is if government is in principle just, then he is right, it is irrelevant. However, it is relevant to what choices we make, as we must compare the whole spectrum of possible outcomes that our choices will entail. Let’s stipulate that government can be wholly valid, just, non-coercive; show me that government and I’ll take it. Does it follow that any government is better than anarchy? Does it follow that most government is better? I can’t answer the second question, but surely anarchy would be preferable to living under Stalin or Hitler.

Quoting Peikoff:

What if an individual does not want to delegate his right of self-defense?” the anarchist frequently asks. “Isn’t that a legitimate aspect of ‘freedom’?” The question implies that a “free man” is one with the right to enact his desire, any desire, simply because it is his desire, including the desire to use force. This means the equation of “freedom” with whim-worship.

First, I’m not sure why you get to decide which of my wants and desires are whims and which are legitimate. Secondly, what if the government doesn’t violate rights, doesn’t coerce, but is incompetent? Must I then submit to its rule?

Finally I’ll give a quick sketch of my view of government. All government is coercive, but that doesn’t mean we can’t distinguish between relatively good and bad governments. Anarchy is not a sustainable situation and will yield to government, and often that government will be systematically abusive. There is no final or perfect solution to how much government there should be, as all possibilities have problems. There are patently bad government situations, and we need to avoid those. Generally speaking, small is beautiful. Like I said before, I’ll take a non-coercive, stable, competent government, but show it to me first.