The Problem With Anarchy
Anarchy is the absence of a state and where people govern each other through voluntary corroporation. The problem with anarchy is that it can lead to disrespect for property rights. Because of this, anarchy is an incorrect form of governance.
Why can anarchy lead to disrespect for property rights? It is because there are no laws, no police to enforce laws concerning property rights, and no court system to alleviate any disrespect towards property rights. In short, there is no remedy for a powerful, wealthy person who assumes other people’s property. Because a wealthy person has adequate financial resources, he/she has the ability to establish a security force, or some other security measure, to protect his/her newly assumed property. Conversely, those who are not as wealthy may not have the financial resources to protect their property.
Anarchists may object to this in one of two ways. (There may be other of course.) One such objection is that the less wealthy can band together to protect themselves against intrusions from the wealthy. This can result in situations found in Somalia and pre-9/11 Afghanistan where there are/were competing warlords.
A second objection is that there will be social mores guarding against such violations of property rights. The problem with this is that mores are violated all the time. Who is to say that mores protecting property rights will not be violated?
Anarchy is an incorrect form of governance. This is due to the inability of anarchy to protect property rights.
Why can anarchy lead to disrespect for property rights? It is because there are no laws, no police to enforce laws concerning property rights, and no court system to alleviate any disrespect towards property rights. In short, there is no remedy for a powerful, wealthy person who assumes other people’s property. Because a wealthy person has adequate financial resources, he/she has the ability to establish a security force, or some other security measure, to protect his/her newly assumed property. Conversely, those who are not as wealthy may not have the financial resources to protect their property.
Anarchists may object to this in one of two ways. (There may be other of course.) One such objection is that the less wealthy can band together to protect themselves against intrusions from the wealthy. This can result in situations found in Somalia and pre-9/11 Afghanistan where there are/were competing warlords.
A second objection is that there will be social mores guarding against such violations of property rights. The problem with this is that mores are violated all the time. Who is to say that mores protecting property rights will not be violated?
Anarchy is an incorrect form of governance. This is due to the inability of anarchy to protect property rights.
posted by Rich at 9:15 PM
2 Comments:
Thank you so much for writing this. I feel that it logically defines what I feel about the anarchy philosophy as a whole, that there is something terribly flawed about it. I believe that many who take up the side of anarchy and argue for it do not fully consider the consequences that could come about in such a state, such as a nation being divided amongst warlords, and are merely looking for instant satisfaction to their political grievances. This article definately deserves a comment.
There are no property rights in an Anarchy. There is only the right of use which is known as "Usufruct".
In Anarchist philosophy all of humanity inherits the entirety of the earth and has access to it by right of possession. In other words since I am using my home I have a right of possession of my home that someone who lives 500 miles from me does not.
Furthermore in an Anarchy the "security force" has as much right to use of and access to the land that the "wealthy person" does and this wealthy person has no authority to coercively control the security force staff. He can only exercise his will through them to the extent that they agree with it. He cannot "fire" them.
This wealthy man cold build a mansion but anyone he might wish to "hire" to keep it clean and well repaired would have as much right to live there and use the house and as much say in how the affairs of the household are handled.
Post a Comment
<< Home