Three Arguments for Anarchism


Suverans2's picture

"Now let us see how a distribution of rights can be deduced from free will. If a value from a bit of the physical world is not claimed by anyone and a first valuer changes or preserves it to serve his value, he makes a claim of ownership or right to that value. In the absence of any later valuers making contrary claims, the claims of first valuers would automatically and naturally result in an assignment of ownership..." ~ Three Arguments for Anarchism by Richard D. Fuerle

How refreshing! The author of this article seems to actually understand that having a "right" to something, means having a "just claim" to that thing; and this holds true whether it be one's life, liberty or physical property. If we could only get this one message through to the human inhabitants of planet Earth, imagine the positive impact it could have toward the goal of peaceful coexistence, the world over.

Suverans2's picture

This, too, in my opinion, is worthy of contemplating, "...equality means equal rights, and rights can be equal only if there is no ruler, which means anarchy." All-in-all, a 'very good' treatise.

MassOutrage's picture

I did not like this article, as it does not account for the unstated rules most anarchists don't admit to having as their basic presuppositions, nor does it account for the reality of basic human nature. It reduces complex human interactions to a level of mechanical functioning that does not reflect how real life is lived by anyone.

Its premise is stated simply: "We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.' That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others."

Well, that is a bunch of rules to start. We must respect the property of others, and the person of others, which is two rules. in fact, those two principles are the foundation of all western law. Of course, the tyrants have added all sorts of legal positivism to those basic premises, but they remain the theoretical foundation of our legal system.

The article implies that a number of other unstated laws are required to operate a system of anarchy. For example, the respect of other persons for those two major rules is a third major rule. What do we do with those who stubbornly refuse to show respect for persons or property. The anarchist will have to hire someone to violently coerce the outlaw to conform to the rules. Now, we don't have anarchy anymore.

Frankly, this whole system is constructed on a mechanistic view of humanity which is unrealistic. Its author must not live near any chaotic city areas where conscienceless sociopaths abound, and untold numbers of others have major mental disorders which dispose them to do violence to the person and property of others. It just won't work. In my city, the police can barely respond to the murders and lesser personal and property crimes fast enough.

After nearly twenty years observing the real world in the legal system, I adhere to the Ron Paul position of small government. Oh, the illogic, says the writer. Who decides the rules? How can we have government if it inevitably expands into tyranny? Fair questions. Well, someone has to have some rules, and the anarchist actually believes in them, while not admitting it.

The Paul position is more honest, because it acknowledges the human tendency to tyranny, but doesn't try to pretend that people are mechanical beings. Doing all this is a messy, illogical, unsatisfying business, but no alternative is yet available until humans become perfect at loving their neighbor.

tzo's picture

"We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.'

There is a big difference between 'no ruler' and 'no rules,' and so putting an 'or' between them as if they were equivalent is not correct.

Watch in order to help clear up your confusion about what is aggression and coercion and what is self-defense.

Equating anarchy with the assumption that no one will do anything wrong, or than there will be no rules that will be enforced, is to misunderstand the subject.

Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

Yes, I noticed that, too; not sure why that author wrote that line, that particular way, because his/her very next sentence corrects this error, "That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others." And, "their property", of course, includes life and liberty; two things this author, unfortunately, never elaborated on, which is why I only gave this article eight stars.

I really liked the intro, e.g. "There are only people--individuals--acting everywhere, thus the government or the state is simply made up by the yielding subjects--and the people acting as officers. What gave them this right of deciding what other people can and cannot do?"

The author's question, in my opinion, was answered in the sentence preceding it, "the yielding subjects".

CONSENT, n. ...We give consent, when we yield that which we have a right to withhold... Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Samarami's picture

The writer lacks writing skills, but I believe has a message to broadcast. He appears to recognize the fallacy in the reification of "the government" or "the state", but his writing needs a host of grammer and punctuation correction to become clear.

I have for a long time preached against the "we" word -- and other uses such as "our" leaders or "our" forfathers. I have no "policymakers" (except those who meet from time to time between my ears :-|). This author appears to substantiate that approach.

Governments, states, countries, nations do not exist. Only human beings (tyrants dressed in sheeps' clothing often as not) exist. All lines (boundaries, borders)are fictitious and their defence is an act of war.