Liberty For All

by Steve Trinward

I’ve been hearing a lot of negative slams at the concept of anarchy lately. Some folks equate it with the little black-hatted guys carrying handheld bombs, as depicted in the yellow-journalist crap of the early 20th Century political cartoons. Some see it as a lack of societal rules, a gateway to disorder and chaos, and the province of terrorists and insurgency against our way of life here in good old America. For others, it would signal the end of civilization as we know it.

I think it’s about time to correct these misreadings, and to defend a state of existence the vast majority of us would embrace warmly in our daily lives, if we only understood the meaning of the word.

Begin Primer: “Anarchy” is a noun, derived from Greek origins: (anarchos - having no ruler). It dates back, according to Webster, to at least 1539, and is variously defined as:

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order: disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature - Israel Shenker>

3: anarchism (which is in turn defined as: 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles.)

Please note that only definitions 1b and 2b make negative assumptions about the term; note further that the 1b downplaying assumes that “the absence of governmental authority” creates the “lawlessness or political disorder” that allegedly results from this condition. (Also consider how in definition 2b, the “wild anarchy of nature” is counter pointed to “manicured plots” - as though there were something inherently superior about surface-scraped landscaping over natural-growth; the Greens among us would surely challenge this … those who can get the “need for government control” out of their heads, at least!) The other options merely define the situation: “absence of government” …

“Anarchy” does NOT mean there are no rules being followed by those within its jurisdiction (or lack thereof); it merely means there are No RULERS, lording it over the lives of others, issuing edicts about how they may or may not behave with each other (or even how they should think?). It is an absence of (external) governMENT, not of governANCE (which may be carried out as self-government, community consensus, etc.), that defines state-of-nature (”anarchy”) conditions.

This happens to be the way most of us folks carry on with our lives each day, making our own rules and following those in our daily doings. We mostly live together peaceably, exchanging goods and services (as well as the occasional greeting?) with each other, by mutual consent and agreement.

It’s only when we bump up against the restrictions imposed from outside - by legislators, regulatory agencies and other elements of external enforcement - that this “archos” factor comes into play.

I got an email recently from the esteemed Richard Boddie (aka Senator Chocolate), forwarding two stories from another libertarian (I’d venture to say … “anarchist”?), fella name of Don Hull in Costa Mesa, CA, concerning government “services”; one story perfectly exemplifies the divide between an anarchist and an archist (more commonly called “statist”) point of view:

“I live in a suburban cliché: A single family residential neighborhood of 4-bedroom houses on 1/3-acre plots, so I am surrounded by neighbors. One day, I was having my house PAINTED. The painters show up and start painting. The Santa Ana winds also show up and start blowing.

“The painters take a big swipe across the side of the house with their spray gun, at the same time as a gust of wind comes along and scatters paint over two neighbor’s houses. At one neighbor’s, the paint falls onto a lady’s rose-garden. At the other, it hits a new Chevy SUV. (Note that all three of us homeowners are home at the same time.)

“Immediately, the rose-garden lady calls me up and says, ‘Don, your painters are painting my roses.’ I stop the painting immediately and send the painters away for the day. The Chevy SUV neighbor calls the government, (EPA, ARB or one of the enviro agencies).

“A few days later, the rose-garden lady says that on second analysis, the paint wasn’t bad enough to cause any real problems to her roses, and that she’ld forgive the incident and let the roses recuperate on their own.  She wanted NO recompense. The Chevy SUV neighbor sends her adult son over to negotiate a re-paint of her car with me. Fortunately, he’s more reasonable than she, says ‘a good detailing can take care of the paint-splatter. We settle for $200.

“Coupla MONTHS later, long after the house is finished, TWO tax-eating inspectors, with clipboards, in a government Ford sedan, show up and ask me about the ‘painting complaint.’ They ask to ‘look around.’ Spend 20 minutes looking for trouble, fill out their questionnaire and depart. Have never heard from them again.

“Summary: If the rose-garden lady, like the Chevy lady, had called the government, I would NOT have even known about the paint-splatter until it was TOO LATE. The roses would’ve been ruined, and the Chevy SUV totally wiped out. I’d have been responsible for some heavy damage. Thanks to the rose-garden lady’s trusting attitude towards a fellow neighbor-that I had no desire to harm her roses-we nipped the problem in the bud, (no groaning, please).

“The Chevy neighbor apparently thought I was her enemy, and that the government was her friend.  She was wrong on both counts. Her ‘friend’ didn’t even show up, until long after the problem had been solved. All the pro-government propaganda (that purposely tries to divide people) IS harmful to society at large, destroying trust between neighbors and making people suspicious of each other’s motives. “Government is obsolete. It should be expunged from the face of the earth.”