Why I Am Not an Anarchist

By Zach Bush

There is no shortage of reports and videos of acts of violence amidst the various events centered around the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017. I have seen everything from breaking windows, starting fires, sucker-punches, brawls, and even read a report of someone getting shot. Pundits have labeled these incidents as acts of anarchy. This has led to anarchists of the Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist variety to argue that these violent protesters are not “true” anarchists and therefore the branding is incorrect and misleading.

So, who is correct, the reporters or the Libertarians/anarcho-capitalists?

Anarchy is the combination of the Greek prefix an (not or without) and the suffix Archy (rule or ruling). Thus, anarchy means without rule.

Now, one would think that something as straightforward as without rule would not leave much for argument over whom a “true” anarchist is. However, the Wikipedia entry for anarchism shows that there is no shortage of hyphenated forms of anarchism. While each sect of anarchism has its own preferred socio-economic ideals, all of them share one common thing: rules. Whether it be anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, or anarcho-capitalism, they all, in direct contradiction to the meaning of anarchy, insist that men must arrange themselves per their ideal economic system.

The anarcho-capitalists, as well as most Libertarians, refer to their one rule as the non-aggression principle (NAP). According to the NAP, no man has the right to initiate acts of aggression towards another’s person or property. A society that adheres to this principle can therefore have no violence and is often referred to as the voluntary society, or voluntaryism.

I didn’t begin to consider political philosophy until I was 18-years old. I found myself tending to agree with the Republicans on some issues and the Democrats on others so I considered myself to be an Independent. Throughout college I didn’t put much thought into it, despite minoring in American Politics. It wasn’t until I had a well-paying Co-op (i.e. a paid internship) and my first experience having a significant portion of my income going to the state and federal government that I began to consider politics more deeply. Some of my coursework led me to the Cato Institute and my acceptance of Libertarianism, specifically of the Milton Friedman variety. The economic crash of 2008 revealed the flaws of Friedman’s monetary theories which led me to Libertarianism in the mold of Ron Paul and Ludwig von Mises, often referred to as min-archism. It wasn’t until my discovery of the works of Murray Rothbard that I came to consider myself as an anarcho-capitalist, rejecting the State in its entirety.

About four years later, I stumbled upon the writings of Robert LeFevre and his essay, “Autarchy vs Anarchy.” For the first time, the internal contradiction of anarcho-capitalism (and all hyphenations of anarchism) had been highlighted. LeFevre reasoned that the correct term I had been searching for is autarchy, meaning self-rule. The beauty of the term is that the non-aggression principle is implicit and it disassociates from other philosophies of anarchism, removing any confusion. Most importantly, as opposed to anarcho-capitalism, it doesn’t force capitalism (or syndicalism, or communism, or socialism, etc.) upon global society. Rather, it allows for everyone to organize themselves under any economic system they see fit because if I agree that I can only myself and you agree that you can only rule yourself, then I cannot rule you and you cannot rule me (note: I’m aware the unlikelihood of every person on Earth accepting this principle, that’s outside the scope of this article). Autarchy, therefore, is the philosophy of peace, freedom, and responsibility.

The reporters and pundits are, therefore, absolutely correct to label the instances of violence as acts of anarchy because a proper anarchist does not abide to any rules. Taken to its logical conclusion, anarchism abdicates itself from self-control because to control yourself would require you, at the very least, to rule yourself. Anarchism, therefore, is the philosophy of violence, slavery, and irresponsibility.

For the years that I embraced the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, I rejected claims that anarchy breeds chaos and violence because I was ignorant of the internal contradictions of my dogma. I encourage all that wish to maximize peace, to carefully consider their philosophies and actions to see if they are at odds with the belief that all mankind should be free. I encourage you to embrace autarchy.

Through the eyes of a non-voter

Things can get pretty lonely for non-voters in the months leading up to a major election. Irregardless of why they choose not to vote, the fact remains they are still a minority and often the target of discriminatory attack (e.g. Chris Matthews). Personally, I can attest that this experience, while difficult, provides an opportunity to better empathize with all different types of minorities.

Empathy is not synonymous with sympathy. Sympathy acknowledges pain. Empathy understands pain. To empathize with someone you must have either shared an experience or be able to put yourself in another's shoes.

For some, the inability to understand why someone chooses not to vote leads to outright emotional attacks and, in rare cases, physical assault. I would like to offer the following thought experiment (inspired by the closing arguments from A Time to Kill) to those who cannot understand why myself, and thousands of others, choose not to participate in elections.

Your "right" to vote and a note about the Founding Fathers

I realize that this post is a bit late as most have already voted and key states pretty much decided. This post is intended to challenge people to reconsider what they are implicitly doing when they cast a vote. I highly doubt this will change anyone's actions tomorrow or 2 or 4 years from now. If I can influence one person, perhaps they can influence another.

Before reading this post I urge you to read the essay A Way to be Free, by Robert LeFevre. It truly changed my life and I think it could change yours as well. I do not think I could write anything better and I will not try. I will keep my argument as concise as possible.

Transform Your Body: Phase I - Set Your Goals

I believe that I possess the tools of knowledge, experience, and theory to help most people reach their desired goals. The problem, in my experience, is that most people never think about what their actual ends are.

Ask most people you see working out at the gym and some typical responses are:

• I want to look good naked
• I want to be strong
• I want to be functional
• I want to be healthy

At first glance these look like great goals, goals I'm sure most people strive for. All of them, however, contain a fatal flaw; they all reference subjective values. Who do you want to look good naked for? What do they define as good? How much weight, in what movement, do you consider strong? Which movements are functional? What function are you trying to perform? What is healthy? Are you referring to overall wellness or results from a blood test? Ask these questions and you the response will often be vague, if you get any at all.

Is Ron Paul Crazy? Part V: The Conclusion

Ron Paul has been consistently called crazy by the establishment media and political parties for his attacks against Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve in general. The preceding series was an attempt to educate people on Ron Paul’s understanding of economics that comes from subjective-utility economics that has become associated with the Austrian School of Economics.

The question remains; is Ron Paul crazy?

Is Ron Paul Crazy? Part I

I certainly used to think so.

I admired him during the debates for the Republican nomination for President in the summer of 2007 because of his strong commitment to limited government, the Constitution, and bringing troops not out of just Iraq, but from all over the world. But then he would go on rants about returning to the gold standard and how Federal Reserve policy was going to lead to a financial disaster.

Let's start with an analysis of the gold standard.

Is Ron Paul Crazy? Part IV

After a nearly 15 month hiatus I am finally ready to conclude my series on Ron Paul. I felt the break was necessary so I could take the time to fully understand Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Parts I - III dealt with the gold standard, fractional-reserve, and central banking. I will now conclude the analysis of Ron Paul's policies by laying out Austrian Business Cycle Theory. This is important as it is relevant to current affairs, more specifically, the recent rise in food and oil prices.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory tells us that any increase in credit money will lead to a boom that must be followed by a bust as the credit money is contracted, so long as the credit money is invested in capital goods. The increase in credit money, or inflation, leads to many investments during the boom that are later revealed to be malinvestments during the bust. The theory is clear; if we wish to avoid the bust, we must not allow the boom.

Are Tax Credits Subsidies?

Recently, Ron Paul published an article titled “How Should Government Treat Energy Producers?”

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul749.html

In discussing the tax code he makes the following claim (emphasis mine), "with tax credits and deductions, industries, business, and individuals simply get to keep more of the money they have earned." He uses this to justify his support for tax credits and that, “Removing tax credits is nothing more than a tax increase.” It should be noted that is the same position Murray Rothbard held in his essay “The Case Against the Flat Tax”.

http://mises.org/rothbard/flattax.pdf

I emphasized “they have earned” above because that is the crucial question. If a credit or deduction allows an individual (to use the terms “industries” and “business” is redundant as they are in fact made up of individuals) to retain his own income then this is indeed a good thing (from a libertarian point of view). It takes the form of Sam steals from Paul to give back to Paul. If, however, the credit or deduction is the income of someone else then this is a subsidy and a distribution of wealth that takes the form Sam steals from Paul to give to Peter.

Is Ron Paul Crazy? Part III

The Federal Reserve is a Central Bank. A Central Bank provides a government with its currency. Because of legal tender laws making it illegal for citizens of the US to use any other currency other than Federal Reserve Notes (USDs), the Federal Reserve is the sole producer of the nation's money supply. This is also known as a monopoly.

The Federal Reserve is made up of 12 regional banks. Directing the actions of these banks are what is known as the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. Both of these are federal agencies. When a government agency has official control of a monopolized good (in this case money) that is socialism (or fascism, but that is a whole other topic!). Every country in the world has socialized money.

Is Ron Paul Crazy? Part II

In the previous post I focused my attention to an analysis of the gold standard and how gold came to be used as money. This post will focus on another of Ron Paul's "crazy" policy platforms; End the Fed. Discovering and understanding the nature of the Fed must begin with a discussion of inflation and fractional-reserve banking.

Despite what you hear on the news or read in the Wall St Journal, Economist, or NY Times, inflation is not an increase in the price level. Inflation is an increase in the money supply. While it is true that inflation tends to lead to an overall increase in prices, it does not necessarily have to be so. It is perfectly possible that the price level can decrease after an increase in the money supply.

While most people have heard of the term inflation, few have no idea whatsoever as to to what fractional-reserve banking is. By law, banks are only required to keep a certain percentage of their cash obligations on hand. For example, say the US requires that all banks must keep 25% of the cash on hand that it owes to owners of checking accounts. Now I go to my bank and deposit $1000. Because, by law, the bank only needs to keep 25% of this $1000, $750 (called bank credit) are available to be loaned out by the banker. While my check balance shows that I have $1000 in the bank in reality there is only $250.

Now this math may not seem to add up to most people. That's because it does not. You may also think that it sounds an awful lot like a pyramid, Ponzi, and now Madoff scheme. That's because it is.

Defining Evil

In order to not do evil it is necessary to first define what evil is.

I believe there are two categories of evil; fraud and violence. Fraud consists in deceptive acts such as cheating and lying. Violence involves the use of force to steal, murder, or injure someone's person or property. The threat of force, coercion, is also considered an act of violence and to be considered evil also.

Unfortunately in this world there are people that, for whatever reason, engage in antisocial acts of behavior and often resort to the various methods of evil listed above. Therefore men must inevitably resort to corresponding acts of violence to protect their person or property.

At this point it becomes necessary to separate acts of aggression versus act of defense. The acts above are commonly referred to as acts of aggression when initiated by an aggressor. Aggressive acts can never be justified if one is to commit oneself to doing no evil. Defending oneself from acts of aggression, however, is justified.

In future posts I will discuss whether or not governments are the most adequate method for defending against aggression (I obviously believe they are not) but for now I just wish to clarify my position on what constitutes evil and draw a distinction between aggression and defense.

I will also, using the definitions above, show how many people engage in evil without knowing it.

For a good read on libertarian legal philosophy with regards to aggression and property rights please read Murray Rothbard's essay on Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.

Inaugural Post

Welcome to my new blog Tu Ne Cede Malis, or Do No Evil!

My job requires a lot of travel and a lot of "me" time which inevitably leads  to me having conversations with myself and working out arguments on a lot of subjects (usually political/economical) in my head. Unfortunately working out these problems in my head is of no real use if I do not share and, most importantly, test them with other people.

So I decided to start this blog to do just that; share, discuss, and spread my ideas with family, friends, co-workers, and anybody else who happens to find this blog. If I can attract enough conversation then I would like to add a forum to the site. I may even compile all of my posts into a comprehensive theory of social interaction (aka economics) and publish a book.

I must stress, however, that the ideas and opinions I hold are not something I magically developed over night, but are the outcome of a long journey I began about 2 years ago this month. As a matter of fact, most of the opinions (which I believe to be truths) I hold now are ideas that I flatly rejected when the journey began.

The ideas I wish to spread are not new. They are ideas championed by the great classical liberals such as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat (The Law), John Stuart Mill (On Liberty). These men helped influence the next line of the champions of liberty like Ludwig von Mises (Human Action), F.A. Hayek (The Road to Serfdom), Henry Hazlitt (Economics in One Lesson), Leonard Read (I, Pencil), and Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom). Today's most well-known icon of the classical liberal tradition is of course non other than Ron Paul (The Revolution: A Manifesto).

The beliefs of the classical liberals could be summed up as this; governments are a necessary evil. Because it was evil, however, they demanded that the government should be minimized to basic legal (upholding contracts, courts) and defense (local police, military) services. They thought that combining a democratic government with a written constitution would be enough to check the growth of the government and prevent it from turning it into a despotic regime.

At some point in time these beliefs began to be challenged. The Anti-Federalists challenged the notion that the US Constitution could check the growth and power of the federal government. The Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton, a loyal British nationalist) proclaimed that dividing the central government into 3 parts (Executive, Congress, Supreme Court) would create a "separation of powers" and each branch would provide a check upon the others. The Anti-Federalists quickly demolished this notion. Because all of the supposed checks were contained within the federal government itself it would be within the self-interest of the members of all branches to work together to expand all of their powers. Anyone who takes the time to read the Anti-Federalist Papers would be shocked at how prophetic their forecasts were.

Frederic Bastiat noted that man, in order to remove uneasiness, must eventually use labor. But labor, especially manual labor, is an uneasiness in itself. Therefore man seeks ways to eventually remove the need to perform labor. His only options are to save the necessary funds or to commit theft. Politics gives the man a third choice; use his power to vote to force taxes upon others. Thus Bastiat proved that once a government was given the power to tax the growth of government would be unlimited. History confirms this.

It was from the works of these challengers to the classical liberal tradition that led Murray Rothbard to the ultimate conclusion that not only are governments not necessary for civilization, they are the very destroyers of it. This idea has become commonly referred to as anarcho-capitalism or market-anarchy.

If there is one book I would recommend anyone to read it would be Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto followed by Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics. Both of these are relatively short and easy for anyone to read and understand.

I am aware to most reading this post that these views will come across as extremist and laughable. I most certainly did not accept them right away and I do not expect anyone else to. In future posts I will touch on the above subjects in much more detail. My only point for now is to show that the beliefs I hold are the outcome of hundreds of years of political and economical theory and historical observation.

I welcome all comments, although comments containing profanity will be deleted. I will also not engage in debates with commentors who wish to engage in ad hominem attacks or simply dismiss the ideas I put forth as simply "crazy" or "stupid".

While most of my posts will be of the economical/political nature, I will also post my thoughts on current events, sports, nutrition, etc. For example, if Syracuse basketball is not ranked #1 in both polls tomorrow morning I will surely be posting a furious rant on that.