by Evan Koser
One of the most prominent misconceptions I encounter in my discussions is that notion which conflates anarchy to lawlessness. Often, people accuse me of imposing a false dichotomy between law & order or apparent chaos. But I'm not suggesting a dichotomy at all, not really. It is true that anarchism is the antithesis to statism; however, I do not equate anarchy with lawlessness because that’s simply not true. Anarchist philosophy, in practice, is a society “without rulers” (this is the literal meaning of the word). I would not condone lawlessness, but the confusion is certainly understandable. Governance can and does exist with or without the State and it begins in the home and ends at our interpersonal relationships.
We are self-governing in all of our relationships, whether it’s between a mother and child; between her and her employer; between child and teacher; employer and employee; buyer and supplier; disputing parties and an impartial arbiter, and so forth. Too often people conflate the concept of governance with the function of a State because it holds a monopoly on public institution.
Mutual assent to the establishment of these relationships (and the countless others I didn’t list) is a regulatory act in and of itself because people set their terms, expectations, conditions, and consideration before committing to them voluntarily—with the exception of that between a parent and child (because your child cannot grant permission to be conceived).
The beauty of a free and open marketplace of exchange is that people have the ability to come together and brainstorm solutions to problems that are impacting their lives. It is a far more direct and sensible approach in comparison to delegating those decision-making powers to an anonymous bureaucrat 2,000 miles away who is apathetic to your interests.
One concept I recommend readers to consider is legal pluralism. This is the notion that all people follow multiple codes, bodies of law, or moral guidelines simultaneously, even while some may conflict or overlap. For example, people in the Steem community reward content they like with their vote of support. Studying how various cultures throughout history have solved conflict or maintained peace can help people recognize solutions outside of the narrow confines of the State. Another example is that many individuals conform to social norms within the home that they would not exhibit in the workplace (and vice versa).
Anarchy isn’t the establishment of a Department of Motor Vehicles to issue you a driver’s license (that’s Statism). Anarchy is the privatization of roads, car insurance, and licensure (if at all) so that the three can work in tandem to provide and maintain the infrastructure which services us as freely and efficiently as economically possible without coercion. Anarchist society, much like an economy, organizes itself without an arbitrary central authority; what works for some may not work for others. Communities are self-organized, markets are spontaneous. For instance, take dating, marriage and family.
In any reasonably free society, these activities do not fall in the realm of political coercion. No government agency chooses who you are to marry and have children with, and punishes you with jail for disobeying their rulings. Voluntarism, incentive, mutual advantage – dare we say “advertising”? – all run the free market of love, sex and marriage.
What about your career? Did a government official call you up at the end of high school and inform you that you were to become a doctor, a lawyer, a factory worker, a waiter, an actor, a programmer – or a philosopher? Of course not. You were left free to choose the career that best matched your interests, abilities and initiative.
What about your major financial decisions? Each month, does a government agent come to your house and tell you exactly how much you should save, how much you should spend, whether you can afford that new couch or old painting? Did you have to apply to the government to buy a new car, a new house, a plasma television or a toothbrush?
No, in all the areas mentioned above – love, marriage, family, career, finances – we all make our major decisions in the complete absence of direct political coercion.
When you enter your friend’s room to ask them if you can borrow their shirt, most people close the door behind them when they leave (especially if the door was closed before you entered). It’s almost an unspoken rule to close the door behind you in such a scenario and adherence to this rule illustrates the concept I mentioned earlier: legal pluralism. It's customary and the social repercussions for not doing so dissuade us from transgressing against our friends' privacy. This concept reflects the reality that human interaction, left to our own devices, is governed by prevailing social and cultural values and that those values are inherent to our conduct.
Besides what we consider to be “the law,” we also follow an innumerable set of unwritten rules in our day-to-day conduct. You must have noticed at this point in your life, for example, that your behavior alters between spending time among friends and spending time among family. Likewise, in the work place your demeanor shifts to conform to the standards expected of your performance in that setting. In every scenario, the penalty for breaching the terms of these unspoken norms is usually a sanction in some form or another: your parents ground you, your friends ostracize you, your boss docks your pay, etc. They do this because people respond to incentives.
Though you don’t realize it, this is anarchy in action. More examples of this are virtually limitless; the relative silence one finds in theater atmospheres is a result of a mutual, unwritten understanding between all patrons. Commercial businesses regularly agree to third-party arbitration clauses all the time, regulating the conduct of their contractual obligations outside of the confines of the Uniform Commercial Code or Federal government. Even the Juggalos have been known to settle their disputes within the context of their own communities. There are no ‘one size fits all’ answers to “what if?” scenarios. People will happily seek out alternative dispute resolution.
It's disingenuous to conflate anarchy with lawlessness. For those interested, I suggest a brief reading on customary law, culture and history written by Dorothy Bracey called “Exploring Law and Culture”. I think it is perfect introductory material to the principles within legal theory, especially for people unfamiliar with the murky concept known as “the law.” It’s short and written for the average reader rather than legal scholars.
