Image Source: https://mises.org/library/are-libertarians-anarchists

Before this class, when I thought of anarchism I thought about “Anarchy in the U.K.” by the Sex Pistols. I hadn’t realized that it went further than graffiti and rejecting authority. I’ve been hearing all semester about Dr. Bylund supporting anarchy, so I was looking forward to hearing him discuss it. I fully admit that I am someone who relies on security and safety for comfort. I am a paranoid person and I feel comforted that there are laws in place to protect me. I am also someone who appreciates structure and rules, and I get confused when I don’t have a clear idea of what to do. These qualities of mine make the idea of anarchism seem scary. However, I am always open to hearing ideas about how society can be improved for the public.

I think the major advantages of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism are the ability to let the people govern themselves, more freedom and independence, and less or no taxation. For me, the biggest disadvantages would be a “survival of the fittest” mindset, a lack of goals, and a lack of safety or protection.

Pros

Self-governing

Being able to self-govern would allow the general public to represent and vouch for themselves. They would not have to rely on representatives to get their ideas heard. From a perspective of letting people speak their minds and acting in their own best interest, anarchism would be ideal.

Freedom and Independence

With all businesses and property being privately owned, there is more free will for producers and consumers to do as they please. There would not be government-imposed restrictions or laws on how producers conduct their business. These businesses would be “governed” by the consumers. Markets would be completely free and consumers would determine the prices and products that they want. Without government restrictions, producers could try to charge high prices, but consumers have the choice to purchase substitutes. Anarchism would also give the public the freedom to abolish rules and laws that do not fit in with their best interest. This could also be a con, but I’ll address it later.

Taxation

Nobody likes paying taxes, and they probably wouldn’t have to with anarchism. This could lead to a lack of infrastructure and lack of safety because of the lack of military. However, I think that those with wealth to spare could donate funds to continue improving infrastructure. Because there would be no government-funded military, I’m guessing that militias would be established. As long as the militias had morals and acted in the best interest of their communities, this could work. The idea of militias does make me nervous, but there would need to be some form of protection.

Cons

Survival of the Fittest

The biggest issue that I could see with anarchism is that some people would have a survival of the fittest mindset. I could easily see people with more money or power attempting to take over and form their own government. Without rules and laws, there would be a lack of consequences. I don’t think I trust humanity enough to act morally. I don’t see anarchy as a long-term way of running the country. I think it would be too tempting for a person or a group of people to take advantage of the lack of structure and try to enforce their own view of how society should be run.

Lack of goals

Without a governing body, I think it would be difficult for society to move forward. Without an allocation of tax money towards specific goals, society could come to a standstill. There wouldn’t be a way to get large groups of people to provide funding for a project that would not benefit them directly. I guess that looking out for only yourself is one of the benefits of anarchy, but I don’t like the idea of not having charities or projects to help others or the environment. An example of this would be the European Union just declaring that by 2035 all cars manufactured will be electric to help with CO2 emissions. This could be an infringement on the purchasing rights of consumers, but I appreciate that they are working towards a goal.

Lack of Safety/Protection

My biggest concern with an anarchist system is the lack of safety and protection. Without a government-funded police or fire system, I worry about the response in case of an emergency. There could be local volunteer police or fire systems, but abolishing the systems that are already in place seems like it could go wrong quickly. Obviously, there have been many issues with the police systems in the United States, but having no system at all seems dangerous. I also talked previously about how militias would be created without the government-funded military. This seems like a good idea in case of a large emergency that requires people to fight or protect their property, but there are many smaller issues that occur every day that the police deal with currently, that I’m not sure a militia would fulfill. Another issue with militias is that I could picture them becoming power-hungry and trying to accumulate power. I already have problems trusting anyone in society, and I picture militias potentially becoming dangerous or power-hungry in an anarchist society. I honestly picture many different groups of people becoming dangerous or power-hungry in an anarchist society. I think too many people crave power and would disrupt the anarchist system to promote what they see as their own ideal system.

I think that Dr. Bylund makes good points about how ideally an anarchist system would be beneficial to everyone and would allow for more freedom and independence, but I don’t see how it could work for a country like ours. I don’t trust the morals of people enough to believe that there wouldn’t be violence or power grabs constantly. It seems like an interesting method in theory, but I don’t see how it could be implemented correctly and morally.