Anarchy, Morality, and the Irrelevancy of Pragmatism

When confronted with the proposition of anarchy, most people respond with some variety of the "Well that would never work" argument. Even people sympathetic to the moral argument for anarchy will use this as a justification for their not identifying as an anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist, or free marketeer, or what have you). It is worth looking closer at the argument from morality, and what, if any, implications the argument from pragmatism (as it will from hereon be called) has against it.

The argument from morality relies on the axiomatic [as we will take it-- I do not seek to prove the common sense morality here] moral proposition that the use of coercive violence is morally impermissible. Here, by coercive violence we mean any destructive behavior that uses force or threat of force to persuade someone to do something against his/her will. By this principle, it is wrong for me to steal from you, it is wrong for me to kill you (assuming you are unwilling to die), it is wrong for me to rape you. All of these things are ways of getting you to do something that you do not want to do by means of coercive violence. This premise is widely accepted and so will be taken as given.

The second premise is that governments, or more specifically, the governing bodies called states, necessarily use coercive violence in their operation. This is more controversial, but first the basic concept of this premise will be examined. The more obvious uses of coercion on the part of the state are SWAT raids, military action, or imprisonment, used on people who directly disobey the state's authority-- the law breakers. However, coercive violence is also used on every law-abiding citizen in the form of taxation. Although force is rarely directly used, the very idea of taxation implies the threat of violence. Taxation by definition is not voluntary but coercive. Were a taxpayer to opt not to pay taxes, he would face imprisonment, or if that taxpayer refused to cooperate in his imprisonment, he would face assault and/or death.

The question posed by many critics of the "gun in the room" argument (or in this case, premise) is: Do states necessarily need to use coercive violence to operate? User fees for government services, they say, could fund the entirety of this highly limited government. This scenario is as contrived as it is irrelevant. If a state government did not enforce a monopoly on its own industry, as it does, and operated on fees gained through the services it provides, it would not be a state but a private non-profit vying for dominance in a regional market. Taxation is what makes a state government what it is. If a similar bureaucracy were created without the use of coercive violence, it would be so unrecognizable that anyone living today would have trouble calling it a state.

And so the argument from morality goes as follows:

1. The use of coercive violence is morally impermissible.
2. Coercive violence is necessary in the operation of a state.
3. Therefore, the state is a morally impermissible institution.

Again, the argument from pragmatism responds with something like the following. Even if anarchy were desirable, there is no way of getting there and so we may as well try to limit the injustice of the system, within the system. Often the question will be raised of how we could possibly transition from the overbearing state we have now to a complete lack of centralized planning. People aren't ready for it, they say. If the state were to crumble, the public would create another state, probably in a scenario similar to the Constitutional Convention or, more likely, the French Revolution of the 18th Century. We should be concerned with how the world is, and seek to better our lot within it, and not worry about some dreamy philosophical theory. These may even be valid points. However, none of them counter the argument from morality.

The argument from morality only concludes what is wrong and not what we should do about that wrong in the immediate future. If one accepts that the institution of states is fundamentally immoral, corrupt, and malevolent, then one accepts the value of individual liberty and accepts that anarchy would be more moral, if not the only moral, social structure. Any objections with regard to the pragmatic realities of the current political situation are irrelevant because it has been established what is wrong and what is right. What each individual chooses to do with that knowledge is up to that individual. If someone accepts that anarchy is a desirable and more perfect system, then she is an anarchist, whether or not she believes anarchy can happen in her lifetime. Rather than refuting the argument from morality, arguments from pragmatism implicitly accept its premises, but then as an aside mention that the soundness of the argument has no bearing on how we ought to live our lives today. Were the arguer to have theoretical objections to anarchy, he would counter the argument from morality on theoretical and not the weaker pragmatic grounds.

One can accept the immorality of the state and yet continue to pay taxes, vote, and campaign for political change within the democratic system. The anarchist only admits that his taxes are only paid because there is a gun to his head. The anarchist only votes in order to choose the less damaging candidate. The anarchist only campaigns to move the democracy closer to freedom and anarchy. Theory and practice need not conflict; we can accept the desirability of anarchy even if we never pick up our guns to try and dismantle our leaders. Especially at this point, anarchy is a state of mind and not a political reality.