To start off, something I feel like I need to mention is Dr.
Holcombe mentions a utopian anarchist society. WhenI initially learned about anarchy, my conclusion was that it wasn’t feasible and something that we would only see in a utopian world, or like in the movies, a dystopian one. It was nice to see that opinion not only validated, but shared with someone with the level of knowledge that Dr. Holcombe has.
I had many hesitations regarding Dr. Bylund’s views of an anarchist society, and really did not see it as any type of real option. So while I understand that Dr. Bylund and Dr. Holcombe actually does share similar government views, I was very clearly able to recognize how much more my viewpoint seemed to align with Dr. Holcome. This can be first seen when he discusses the dilemma regarding private sectors. Many people wonder how we would get things done, which is a very valid concern, but it’s true that private institutions have pretty much taken care of this problem. Private schools are already something that can be considered fairly popular today, and private roads you have to pay to drive on are not all that uncommon either. While I do think these ideas would apply very well, the next statement is something that I believe needs to be further addressed before anyone goes promoting anarchy as a good idea.
One of the biggest claims that I found to be problematic, is that the individual people themselves would have to pay for security. The excuse is that because we would no longer be forced to pay taxes, that the money could just go to these private protection firms instead. Does this mean that only the rich should be protected? Currently, taxes are relative to income, is this how the firms will treat things, because to be blunt, I really doubt it. Private institutions can charge whatever they please, so what’s to stop them from just taking on the most prestigious clientele and turning the others away? Dr. Holcombe does go on to address that he thinks these questions that many of us are asking ourselves that arise are valid and he himself is unsure of just how anarchism would work. While I’m open to being proven wrong, I truly believe that these roadblocks just make anarchy unrealistic in our everyday society. It just doesn’t seem like something that could exist outside a movie or a novel to me. Or if it does exist, how long would it even be able to last?
So this is exactly where monopolies come in, and could pose a major threat to those who are supportive of an anarchist society. We learned at the very beginning of class that our definition of government is whoever has a monopoly on violence. Isn’t this exactly what would happen if we had to hire private companies for protection, and one singular company seems to rise above the rest? Wouldn’t this private owned company monopolize power and then we would just have a new government? I think that power and hierarchies are inevitable, and truly do not see how any type of government can be avoided. Wouldn’t there be more countries without a government, if government is something that can be avoided?
A debate point that I found very interesting is that no government is better than a poor government. This I find to be a very debatable statement, because if the creation of government is inevitable, what if a worse sector of government is created. I truly think that cut and dry statements on anarchy are hard, because there has to be so many assumptions involved in order to make them. There’s loopholes left and right.
I would like to put a disclaimer that I am in no way against changing or improving things, but I just think that government is an inevitable part of life. The arguments that Dr. Bylund makes, while fair, don’t sway me at all. The discussion we had in class last week did nothing but reaffirm the views that I walked in with, and those views are that an anarchist society would not work.
Overall, while I found the debate interesting I very much agree with Dr. Randy Holcombe over Dr. Per Bylund. When I first listened to Dr. Bylund speak last week, I tried to keep an open mind, but thought there were too many factors that lead me to believe that anarchism wouldn’t work, or due to the way that government works, that there would be a new, de-facto government shortly after the transition to anarchism anyway. It was nice to see the other side of things, and I would like to say that I found this debate to be one of my favorites in class!
