Anarchism: In Practice No Paradise

Anarchy, a situation of no objectively binding government, is not something that exists in the mere theory of the philosophy of anarchism. And it has never worked for the common good. There may be limited conditions when select groups of people of like temperament and outlook can participate in temporary intentional situations which maintain a peaceful egalitarian coexistence without "rules", especially at counter-cultural festivals. However, the annals of history actually show that a pervasive state of chronic anarchy spells societal disaster, especially for the socially, economically and physically vulnerable. When anarchy arises across the demographic mix, those with latent sociopathic leanings and possessed of any wealth and power will step in to take advantage of the absence of law, and intimidate, bribe, coerce, subjugate and exploit those weaker than themselves -- until of course someone stronger than themselves puts them in their place in a hierarchy of might makes right. So the long-held dream of the counterculture of establishing an Eden-like anarchy for all simply cannot be feasibly realized. One of the worst cases of political anarchy happened in China when opportunistic European colonialist powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries weakened the once impermeable fabric of Chinese society by flooding their markets with the highly addictive and emotionally and physically debilitating drug known as opium. Government in China became ineffective and localized warlords mushroomed across the countryside from the morass of chaos, creating a bitter tenor of life indeed, especially for hundreds of millions of peasants. That was the reality of anarchy. In Europe and America during that same time period, there were people who actually called themselves anarchists, and who believed that humankind would never be able to set up a form of government that would be fair to everyone. These Victorian-Era anarchists thought that, if they could demonstrate the vulnerability and ineffectiveness of government in response to acts of terrorism, people who felt oppressed by official authority would rally around them, and a tranquil utopia without oppressive law would simultaneously arise (after those in authority were either purged or converted by the sheer mass of popular will). However, desperate acts of violence do not inspire people's confidence that such instigators will suddenly fade back and become peaceful members of the tranquil and harmonious society they promise. In practical terms, anarchy is really about two related conditions: (1) the rule of law has been superseded by strongmen, and (2) impartial authority has collapsed. Sometimes this arises because of civil war, as it did in the 12th century in Medieval England, when two candidates for the royal throne garnered enough adherents to their respective causes that neither could rule the entire country, and so anarchy ensued as endemic warfare erupted between the factions. After decades of strife, social exhaustion set in, and a settlement was finally reached in which the heir of one of the contenders would succeed to the throne. That was Henry II, and it became that king's goal to reform and bolster the centralized authority of the law as a uniform system in which people of all affiliations and social estates could expect to be treated fairly under the judicial authorities. King Henry II reaffirmed the traditional national code of the Common Law. His reforms established accredited institutions of legal education, a system of qualified appointment selection for all official roles in judicial process. Those vulnerable to powerful local magnates could have real and reasonable expectations that transgressors of whatever rank or title would be duly punished by the executive powers of royal government, whose members could and would exercise regulatory and punitive powers divorced from any conflicting feudal obligations. In short, the enforcers of the law would be loyal only to the law itself, and the king's central duty would be to uphold the law. But of course, being in a time before democracy, feudal society could not always maintain the complete effectiveness of these reforms, however lasting they did ultimately become. Another civil war erupted during the 15th century in England, once again because of weakened central government in which two factions vied to establish their rival candidates permanently on the royal throne. During that time, a system of localized political patronage took advantage of the inter-dynastic collapse of effective centralized authority. From peasants to tradesmen, from knights to petty barons, every person's survival and prosperity depended on obtaining the favor of the strongest nobleman who would accept their liege service. Whether it was a baron winning a position under an earl, or a plowman winning it from a hedge knight, that person became his superior's protected client. If you were in legal trouble, your patron would pack the jury box with other clients who would find in your favor. Judges and sheriffs feared to go against the wishes of local or regional lords who had an interest in a particular case. If you were a client, you did as your patron commanded. It was a polite form of gangsterism dignified with heraldic badges of livery. Your loyalty was not to the law and justice but to might over right, and for most people of lesser social rank there was no other practical choice (whatever their personal moral ideals might have been). And if you chose to give your allegiance to a lord who ended up on the losing side, it didn't matter how legitimate and just your personal case was, you could be stripped of everything. This second civil war finally resolved under a new king (Edward IV), who restored social order by reestablishing effective centralized authority,. However, he died prematurely before the legacy of the preceding years of political chaos could be fully extirpated, and his heirs were assassinated. Once again, anarchy threatened, but a new candidate for the throne from an obscure cadet branch of the royal family won a decisive battle and took the crown to establish the Tudor dynasty. Under the Tudors, the political mechanisms for competing regional and local power were systematically eradicated, and the institutions of centralized authority were legally and fiscally strengthened, so that they could stand on their own even if a weak monarch reigned. The law of the nation now prevailed unchallenged by the great nobles, whose power was now administratively atomized. So you see, even looking at a few historical precedents in England, whose laws and institutional traditions were the foundation for America's, we see that innocent people only suffered under periods of anarchy, and reformist leaders inevitably arose who worked hard to prevent that societal agony from returning. Right now we once again must fear the potential threat of anarchy, because the rich are no longer effectively taxed, and as a consequence the institutions of state and federal government are becoming increasingly hamstrung in their ability to carry out their responsibilities to society. Through legislation that minimizes the role of government, our society is being institutionally disassembled and falling into infrastructural neglect. Our humane and economically necessary traditions of social welfare and public education that maintain a modern democratic society are being dismantled. Our regulation of the private sector against the abuses of exploitation and environmental degradation is being legally undermined by partisan judicial interpretation. And the semi-autonomous magnates of feudal times are coming back in the form of corporations with citizen-powers, who have armies of retainers: politicians and lawyers more loyal to their corporate magnates than to the rule of law. The new heraldic livery comes in the form of corporate logos. These tendencies toward anarchy are a sobering prospect for ordinary people to contemplate, and as anarchistic trends continue to undermine our good government, they will become a dire matter to confront in daily life itself. A reduced role of government will thwart our practical means toward human and civil rights as individuals. We must support leaders who believe in strong government. The laws on the books cannot be enforced without properly funded regulatory means and powers, not to mention the protection of an impartial body of officials. Broadly speaking, human nature has proven itself to be too dangerous to its own kind to be given free reign. The libertarian myth of untrammeled liberty being the highest goal of civilization is really a recipe for anarchy, where the playground will be enjoyed by the rich and powerful alone. This is the real and original reason people long ago walked away from a natural state of anarchy in the first place, and chose to set up legally ordered government by common consensus. A government that encompasses everyone's rights and well-being is the most wholesome compromise if we hope to live peaceably and constructively amongst our fellow human beings. We form a species of such morally diverse natures and purposes that we must be bound by an actionable common law that challenges and impedes those who would act irresponsibly or do harm to their neighbor.