Forums of the Libertarian Left

Talking about issues with people one-on-one will be one of the things we do the most. I've done a lot of debating with people, and have found that 'mainstream' arguments against anarchism tend to fall into a handful of main categories. There are certain debate templates that in my experience lead down a dead end and should be avoided. I thought it might be useful if we came together and compiled some of the best and most concise arguments to use. I have actually been able to get people to agree with me at times!
I'll start with some of my own, based on my own experiences.

1. It's good to start by saying what it is exactly that you advocate: i.e., that people must govern themselves by forming voluntary associations, and so on. This puts the cards on the table so the other person can't just say "Without laws we'd just be running around killing each other!" or some such thing. A big problem is that a lot of people don't even know that anarchism is an actual political philosophy -- they just think it's an adolescent desire to overthrow and destroy. It's important to keep in mind that most people (Internet trolls excluded) oppose anarchism because they actually fear the concept of no government, not because they just want to be a jerk. The goal is not to attack them, but to change the way they see things.

2. "If you hate government so much, why don't you move to Somalia?"
This is one of the most obnoxious, trollish arguments that we have probably all encountered at some point or another. If you don't feel like explaining the history of the monstrous fiction known as "Somalia" and how it is a far more damning indictment of the concept of the State than of "anarchism", there is a very simple response. Just ask, "Should the Somalis have obeyed Siad Barre rather than overthrown him?" Now the troll is in a trap: if he answers yes, this brings up a lot of uncomfortable issues like that whole Declaration of Independence thing, and whether you have the duty to obey someone who has arbitrarily declared himself to be your master(like someone who kidnaps you). If no, he's an anarchist!! In short, put him on defensive. The key issue is whether the entity carved out by British and Italian war criminals over a hundred years ago ought to be enforced at gunpoint, or whether that whole thing about consent of the governed has any meaning or if it's just 18th century trash.

3. "Anarchism would just lead to warlords..."
Here I like to ask how it is that we have the freedoms that we have at all. After all, the human race exists in a state of anarchy. It wasn't until recently that we were aware of this: previously, most people believed that God himself (or the gods) ruled us through our "leaders". Obedience to them, however, did not guarantee the slightest bit of freedom...or peace, or justice, or even the survival of civilization for that matter. (see the fall of the Roman empire for details.) In fact, as we say Liberty is the Mother of Order, we might also say that Liberty is the Daughter of Disobedience. The only reason we have any rights at all is because historically we were willing to fight for them ourselves -- if we had only relied on the benevolence of our rulers to guarantee freedom and peace, we'd still be in the middle ages.
In other words, anarchism, and the refusal to obey and be ruled, is the ONLY way we can prevent people from becoming warlords. It's a rather profound point, once it sinks in.

4. All appeals to "limited government", "the law", etc. are inherently anarchistic. When I argue politics, I frequently hear something along the lines of "I think our Constitutional system with checks and balances was a pretty good idea..." but point out the absurdity of thinking that a piece of paper magically guarantees our rights. It's pretty simple: either we refuse to have certain things done to us, or we are at the mercy of a supposedly benevolent caste of, well, warlords. And who gets to decide what we're allowed to refuse the government to do to us?

5. "What if nobody wanted to [build roads/fire departments/take your pick]?"
The absurdity of this "argument" is pretty self-evident; what if the state decided it didn't want to do these things? However, this relates to what I think is a huge mistake anarchists (myself included) often make when debating. Too often the argument gets framed in such a way that the anarchist is forced to argue that some future anarchist utopia would work perfectly, and then the statist merely has to suggest that something might go wrong. ALWAYS put the statist on the defensive, where he belongs. You don't have to sketch out what an anarchist society would look like, or how it would prevent itself from collapsing, or whatever. The burden is on the statist to prove that obeying those who claim the right to rule us is better than thinking for ourselves, in the face of all the historical evidence.

6. Relating to #5...any argument that involves how something might go wrong in an anarchist society -- "What if a new dictator rose up? What if we were invaded by another country? What if society degenerated into endless vendettas? What if the people in one area decided to impose a theocracy?" should be immediately turned around with the question of what if these happened even (gasp) with a state in power? These are all scenarios that assume the worst of human nature, so we ought to, for the sake of argument, explore what horrible things could potentially happen if we gave the final authority to a group of, well, humans. Of course imposing a government on people has never actually led to brutality and chaos, so there's no need to use historical examples...just imagining a hypothetical situation in which government might go wrong should be enough.
To sum it up, any problem that could happen in an anarchist society could also happen in a state-run society. Imposing a state solves none of these problems and adds several of its own.

7. "Our government is democratically elected!"
Most non-anarchists in the Western world practice the Orwellian concept of doublethink in their political views. On the one hand, we all spout out about "popular sovereignty", "the will of the people", and "democracy" from our kindergarten civics classes. On the other hand, it's important to remember, the knee-jerk arguments that people typically use against anarchy are the exact same arguments that were used against democracy in the 18th century. This is significant: democracy is the same thing as anarchy, properly understood. So at least the oldschool critics of democracy and republicanism were consistent: they believed in the divine right of kings, or in a Hobbesian absolute monarchy. So-called democrats today are not. So this is an issue worth exploring.

Basically, as I see it, either people have the right to govern themselves or they don't. There's no in-between. As I mentioned on a separate post, the best way to explore whether we are governing ourselves currently, is to ask if a state could secede, if the majority of people wanted to(it isn't even necessary to discuss the concept of unanimous consent; for the sake of argument we can assume that "the majority" is enough).
If the person says yes (So far, I have forced one governmentarian down this road of logic!!) then they must logically believe counties can secede, and generally that any government created by a group of people coming together to protect themselves is legitimate, any government created any other way is not.
If the person says no, presumably it's because they think the majority of people in the nation wouldn't allow it. But this presupposes that "the Union" is a valid political entity, but a territory chosen by the majority of the people within isn't. So how are borders legitimately created, if not by the decision of the people? This question is even more powerful in other parts of the world, such as, say, France. The only reason Burgundy is part of France, and not its own country, is that Robert II invaded it 1000 years ago. If the people of Burgundy wanted to govern themselves freely, why would this criminal and illegitimate act trump the will of the people, if France is a "democracy"? Also, find an act of secession that your opponent supports -- there must be at least one, unless he/she is some sort of medievalist. 13 colonies from Britain, Estonia/Ukraine/Georgia/etc. from the USSR, Finland from Russia, France/Germany from the Carolingian empire (!), any part of Europe from the Roman empire, any African state from imperialism, etc. Find out why they support this.
Returning to our original secession example, if the reason the U.S.A. exists is that "the people" spontaneously came together and decided to form a union, then clearly any number of them could decide again to form a different union(which was the original idea of Jefferson and Madison anyway). Anyone who participates in a contract should be able to break off from it. Otherwise, the concept of majority rule presupposes the legitimacy of "the Union", since if the U.S. came into existence because the majority of people in this geographical area spontaneously decided to form a union binding on the rest of us (which is obviously bullshit anyway, but pointing out what really happened is even more damning to claims that we are currently governing ourselves), then by the same logic two thugs could move into houses on either side of one person, declare the three of them to be a "nation", and then do whatever they want to the 3rd person on the basis of majority rule.
So when people say democracy is the "rule of the majority", the big question is, "the majority where?" It may be interesting to explore the Declaration of Independence at this point, which doesn't say anything about "51%", or of the sanctity of existing nation-states. In fact you might remind your democratic opponent that the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution really had nothing to do with the will of the majority: the rebels didn't give a rat's ass what people living in England, Ireland, etc. thought about their secession. In fact they didn't even take an opinion poll on the concept of secession within the 13 colonies (I believe about a third of colonists were actively in favor of revolution by 1776). Food for thought...

8. "If obedience to law was purely voluntary, how would people punish murderers?" (the question asked by AmazingAtheist)
Now we're getting into actual political philosophy, so if the governmentarian has made it this far, it's a good sign.
The way I see it (although others may disagree), anarchism isn't really about what people are allowed to do so much as it is about who's doing the allowing. Libertarianism, broadly defined, could be seen as an ideology regarding what the laws ought to be. Thus, anarchism is the structure, and libertarianism/socialism(depending on your flavor) is the content of a free society. Anarchism does imply freedom, but it does not guarantee it per se. I think it's important to make this point clear; a lot of people ask this because they sincerely don't understand.
To sum up: in an anarchist society people would band together and form "governments" to regulate their own dealings with other people. Thus murdering, attacking or robbing someone would get you in trouble with their "government", but that doesn't mean that it rules you or is your government. So in interacting with other people, you would have to observe their rules, but that doesn't mean that they rule you. That's all a bit different from what we have now.

and so on...

Very good post. I run into at least one of those every time I tell someone I'm an anarchist.

Excellent post.

This will be making an appearance on my blog soon enough. Do you have a blog you would like me to link to? Private website or something?

Yeah, I've got one at http://lifeafterauthority.blogspot.com but it sort of sucks ass right now, since I just started it and I never have time to write anything on it, but I'd be honored if you included my post on yours.

You might also want to read this.

http://www.marketanarchy.com/pamphlets

manbear2pig wrote:Yeah, I've got one at http://lifeafterauthority.blogspot.com but it sort of sucks ass right now, since I just started it and I never have time to write anything on it, but I'd be honored if you included my post on yours.

Well I posted the piece. I edited the structure a little and removed a few sentences from the first paragraphy, but I thought it was better to ask forgiveness than permission. I also provided a shout out to your blog, perhaps this provide incentive to expand your blog.

I think the post is good. It works well particularly for new Anarchists, as they tend to have a hard time finding their feet and combating disillusionment. I don't know about you, but I was made to feel like crap for subscribing to 'Anarchism' by people who, 'hated that idea,' for a long time.

One of the strangest arguments I get from the Mises Institute and accompanying libertarian forums is that we can't have competition over what is a just property system because their vision of property is the only just one. Minarchists and anarcho-capitalists are both saying as much...

You might also want to read this.

http://www.marketanarchy.com/pamphlets

Those fliers make some excellent points, especially about the accusation of "Anti-Americanism". However I have a few criticisms. It's important to be wary of symbols and ideas that people have been conditioned to reject immediately. Anything that looks like a dollar sign will probably set off alarms in a lot of people. The same with criticizing Lincoln -- obviously it's an important point but people are so thoroughly brainwashed in his cult that if you handed the pamphlet out to people on the streets that part alone might turn them off. Also the phrase 'market anarchy' might make people think we're trying to trick them, since it's not a commonly used one -- I think merely 'anarchy' or even 'democracy' (a good way to play with people's minds!) should be good enough, since the burden lies on an anarchist who favors abolishing all markets to prove that their ideology is in fact anarchistic, rather than the other way around.
But yes, I think that ultimately the way to deprogram people is to examine their values and premises. On the face of it, it might seem hard to argue with someone who openly declares that some people do have the right to rule others -- in a sense, there's no way you can 'prove' that they don't, since it's more of a feeling. However, you can prove that they don't really practice what they preach, thus forcing them into a logical contradiction. Ask them if they would willingly and gladly obey someone who kidnapped them, if they advocate slavery, etc. -- which should all follow naturally if some have the right to rule others. Another point is to try to see where the person is coming from. For instance a liberal often makes the argument about "What if people were too poor to have health care?" or some such thing, and I think that arguing that it's immoral to provide healthcare by robbery is a dead end that will never change their mind; it's better to cut to the root of the problem and explore why it is that so many people are so poor in the first place, and how government prevents people from helping each other. With a conservative, as the pamphlet mentions, it is best to point out that anarchism is the true legacy of the American Revolution, with anarchistic ideas responsible for making America what it is[was =( ]. Basically, most people reject anarchy because they think that A) the corporations/rich would take over or B) there would be chaos and rioting, so we have to show that there's no way that self-government would cause these things if the government of the many by the few can supposedly prevent it.

Another cunning strategy is to take people you know are the role models of your opponent and show that they could be seen in an anarchist light -- for liberals, Gandhi and Martin Luther King (invoking them is a good way to trap someone who says we're obliged to obey a "democracy"), for conservatives...the American revolutionaries, Thoreau maybe (although today's conservatives seem to have rejected all American traditions and values in favor of the cross draped in the flag...but keep in mind that most people who think of themselves as "conservative" are merely reacting to their conception of "liberal" tyranny, who get suckered in).

But for now, I think using the word "democracy" to describe our views would begin to reframe the whole issue in a broader context, easily sidestepping most of the predictable arguments used against "anarchy".

manbear2pig wrote:I think that arguing that it's immoral to provide healthcare by robbery is a dead end that will never change their mind; it's better to cut to the root of the problem and explore why it is that so many people are so poor in the first place, and how government prevents people from helping each other.

Very well said. Personally, I try never to take the "taxes are theft" route. All a liberal has to do is respond that it isn't theft because justice demands it and thus it wasn't your right to have all that extra money as a consequence. Or they can make the point about the diminishing utility of wealth. Taxes are the best solution that they've developed to deal with the privilege that they wish to combat. It's not unreasonable when you account for the lack of vision. As Tom Knapp puts it, cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. Or to put it another way, you won't find me arguing against any government plan in the interim that results in a move in that direction as long as it was a means and not an end. But how often does that happen?

I guess I have the opposite position. I have no problem with the term Anarchy, and don't want to use the term democracy.

neverfox wrote:Very well said. Personally, I try never to take the "taxes are theft" route. All a liberal has to do is respond that it isn't theft because justice demands it and thus it wasn't your right to have all that extra money as a consequence. Or they can make the point about the diminishing utility of wealth. Taxes are the best solution that they've developed to deal with the privilege that they wish to combat. It's not unreasonable when you account for the lack of vision. As Tom Knapp puts it, cut taxes from the bottom up and welfare from the top down. Or to put it another way, you won't find me arguing against any government plan in the interim that results in a move in that direction as long as it was a means and not an end. But how often does that happen?

I've never experienced this myself. When I argue that taxation is theft, the majority of people agree with me but then argue with the, 'but how will you pay for the roads?" argument. I find it to be a great starting point for discussing Anarchist principles in everything but name. You'd be surprised when you get the person who agrees with everything, only to find out they're an Anarchist. But then again, I may not have taken this route with too many who have had the time and ability to educate themselves in political theory.

RoyceChristian wrote:I've never experienced this myself. When I argue that taxation is theft, the majority of people agree with me but then argue with the, 'but how will you pay for the roads?" argument. I find it to be a great starting point for discussing Anarchist principles in everything but name. You'd be surprised when you get the person who agrees with everything, only to find out they're an Anarchist. But then again, I may not have taken this route with too many who have had the time and ability to educate themselves in political theory.

For me it's a personal preference not to take that route because so many of my friends have been exposed to the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul and the like and it 1) gets them thinking I'm on that train and 2) I simply don't base my beliefs on things like "tax is theft". It's the endpoint of a long train of principles and certainly not the most important to me. It places justice on a binary scale rather than a continuum and lacks an emphasis on decentralization and choice. I hold that anything is on the table to be legitimate if it passes the test of rational thought and self-government. If people freely associate as Georgists, for example, I wouldn't be calling their LVT theft unless they enforced it with something other than non-physical, decentralized, extra-legal sanctions.

So I prefer to talk about finding solutions to competing privilege out of existence and let the issue of taxes die on the vine where it may (and likely will). But I respect your approach, especially in the context you describe where it sounds effective. I think it's good to have a flow chart, if you will, of responses given the possible biases in the person you are speaking with.

I don't see why you couldn't use the "taxation is theft" argument. Sure they'll argue otherwise, but it's a great opportunity to explain the universality argument to them.

Francois Tremblay wrote:I don't see why you couldn't use the "taxation is theft" argument. Sure they'll argue otherwise, but it's a great opportunity to explain the universality argument to them.

I didn't say can't but what is the universality argument?

A moral or political principle must apply to all people at all times and places, otherwise it is a (power grab if based on class, otherwise personal preference).

But the problem is that the idea that the State is nothing more than the expression of the will of the people is so deeply ingrained in some people's minds that they won't see it as a power grab...
Thus I think the deceptively simple question "Who makes the borders, if not the people themselves?" is perhaps the best way to destroy once and for all the notion that we are a "democracy", without having to resort to vague emotional appeals or common sense - which statists often lack - but just cold, hard logic: it's a simple question that demands an answer. If they say "the people's representatives" then you could say "so then the people could secede and elect representatives?"...Since this argument is perhaps, in theory, the only one we really need, we should list all the possible responses people will come up with and how to refute each, although I think most are pretty toothless.

I was hoping we could all put ideas on here so that it becomes like an encyclopedia of some of the better ways to respond to these arguments. I have some more:

"Human nature makes anarchy impossible!"
A common response to this is to point out that the same was said of democracy, women's rights, and abolitionism, and such. This is a good argument, although I feel that it smacks too much of begging the opponent to give your ideas a chance, and if you're doing this you will quickly lose momentum. In fact you should put him on the defensive. Perhaps a good counterargument would be to say something like "Would you try to seek justice if I killed your parents?"
"Of course!"
"You're a hopeless idealist - there will always be murder! Human nature makes a world without murder impossible!" In other words, there's a big distinction between thinking anarchy will "work" and "being anarchist", analogous to the difference between thinking there will someday be a world without murder and being anti-murder personally. Or, ask them what their political philosophy is, and then explore how it might go wrong (if they're a democrat, "What if the people elect a genocidal government?", etc.) and then, of course, turn it back around on them.

"Deregulation"
This is of course a very ugly word in many circles,especially now, and some have tried to bait me with it, as if my views had been adopted by Alan Greenspan . Once again, the best response is to turn it around.
Statist: "With no regulations, wouldn't the powerful just be running the show?'
Anarchist: "Absolutely: which is why an unregulated government is so dangerous!"
and the "who will regulate the government" question leads the statist back to the trap that I've mentioned: either there is some "final authority" (the military, the supreme court,...) that is regulated by nobody, or we recognize that nobody can be put in this position, which is...anarchy!!!

Basically it's good to always stay on the offensive: it is the statist who has to justify the right of some to rule others, not vice versa. At the same time, it's good to not be mean-spirited and try to find common ground. Very few people are hardcore state-worshipping drones; most people simply have a misunderstanding somewhere.

"But the problem is that the idea that the State is nothing more than the expression of the will of the people is so deeply ingrained in some people's minds that they won't see it as a power grab..."

Yes, of course. That's why you need to drive the universality argument home first.

And of course the other point is, if the State is supposed to be the expression of the will of the people (which is a silly notion in and of itself, and probably easily refuted), then why not just cut out the middleman?


"Basically it's good to always stay on the offensive"

That is one of the important points. Always stick to the moral issues, always point out how their position is the weak one. Never lose yourself in their questions.

And of course the other point is, if the State is supposed to be the expression of the will of the people (which is a silly notion in and of itself, and probably easily refuted), then why not just cut out the middleman?

That would only lead someone to a fully democratic state, not necessarily anarchism. The biggest objection to anarchism is that a minority would be disruptive and make a system mostly reliant on consensus and arbitration impossible.

How can it lead to a democratic state? The State is the middleman.

Occasionally you come across obvious ideas nevertheless spelled out in clear and effective ways for those who don't find them so obvious. This is one of those examples and I think it contains many gems that can be used to turn common arguments for the state on their head. Brilliantly, it goes after a concept from basic civics class that everyone takes for granted as a good thing and uses it to destroy the whole idea of a state.