The Real Anarchists

The Real Anarchists
by Mark Anderson

April 29, 2002

Once upon a time, mankind existed without government. Believe it or not, government didn't create man; man created government.

As John Locke articulated it, "To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."

Every person has God given dominion over his own person and possessions. While one person's rights end where another person's begins, some people exercised rights beyond the boundary of the natural order. Hence, man created government.

Everybody has natural rights from birth, which preexist any sort of positive action by government. As some people violated those natural rights of others, governments were created for the sole purpose of securing those rights. If government itself endowed us with rights, then there would have been no need to even create government, as the sole purpose of government is to secure our natural rights. It is precisely because we had rights that preexist government that we created government in the first place.

Let us now turn to the wisdom of Frederic Bastiat, taking some pieces from his famous essay, The Law.

"Each of us has a natural right-from God-to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two."

"If every person has the right to defend even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force-for the same reason-cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

"Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise."

As Frederic Bastiat articulated, if it is contrary to the natural law and order of things for one to plunder the wealth or life of another, thus governments are created, then it is equally unlawful for the government to do the same thing.

Contrary to popular belief, the "Law" (capital L) is not some arbitrary set of rules set up by a certain group of men, better known as government. If that was our definition of the "Law," then it would be subjective and relative - an ever changing target, conforming to benefit the author. The "Law" that Frederic Bastiat speaks of is an objective idea. That idea is simply this: it is wrong for one to violate the rights of another.

With the growth of the state, we have seen a whole new class of "crimes" created. These "crimes" are crimes against the state; violating gun laws, tax laws, environmental laws and licensing laws, etc. In the natural lawful order of things, there is no such thing as a crime against the state. Lawful order does not mandate a prescribed behavior towards government. Lawful order mandates a prescribed behavior for interaction with other individuals.

Being the private sector is anterior to the state, then it only makes sense that the principle of collective right is based on individual right. It is wrong for one to murder another. Thus, it would be wrong for 80% of the people to organize a collective force to murder the other 20%. And if it is wrong for the people to keep and bear arms, then it would be wrong for the people to create a government which can.

In fact, the very imposition of such laws is lawlessness on the part of the state. It is called legalized lawlessness or legalized anarchy. I cannot legally steal from any of you, however, the state can legally steal from you and give to me in the name of "social justice," or "helping the poor." A particular example of a state crime against a citizen would be the BATF showing up to somebody's residence with firearms to confiscate firearms. Is it wrong for people to possess firearms? If so, then the BATF is equally committing a crime. In that case, the citizens should be confiscating the BATF's firearms. Or is it wrong to steal somebody's firearms? If so, then the BATF is committing a crime by confiscating the firearms.

In order to understand exactly what legalized anarchy is, one must forget that government is above anybody. All men are created equal. A government employee is not "more equal" than anybody else. Government is not a title, it is an idea. If I change my name to "Federal Government," I doubt that anybody would pay taxes to me. The Bible does not tell us that all power is God ordained. Romans 13 tells us what constitutes a legitimate government, defining it is an idea, not a title.

If whatever X says is law, then the law is arbitrary, subjective and relative. Righteousness then becomes defined in infinite terms. This means that contrary to popular belief, anarchy is not defiance of the state's will. A good working definition of anarchy would be this: the freedom for one to take away the freedom of another. Obviously, there are circumstances in which people should lose their freedom - such as one who murders somebody. But think about the essence of why it is warranted to take away somebody's freedom in a just fashion. It is because one person took away the freedom of another unjustly. The murderer took away the life another, hence, his freedom, or his life, should also be confiscated.

So, back to our definition of anarchy. Anarchy is the freedom for one to take away the freedom of another unjustly. Putting aside overly abundant affection for the state, one can understand how socialism itself is anarchy. For what difference does it make if it is an individual acting on behalf of himself, or on behalf of another, or a person "acting on behalf" of the collective confiscating that freedom unjustly?

While there is no such thing as a crime against the state, there are certainly state crimes against citizens. Thus, I conclude that the inherent chaos of socialism is a state of anarchy. The socialists are the real anarchists. ***