Friday, April 3, 2009

Freedom vs. Anarchy

As a libertarian-minded member of society, I tend to get into debates and arguments on current issues and the philosophy of government, generally with people who do not share my political views at all. Throughout the many, often heated discussions I have had with students on SCSU campus, I have noticed an irritating misconception on the libertarian philosophy, which is to confuse it with that of anarchism. Fact remains : freedom is not anarchy.

While I am an advocate of minimal government, I do not believe that a total lack of government would do much benefit for society (euphemism). In fact, removing any form of governance from society would be disastrous for the majority of the population. Without an appropriate law enforcement system, violent criminals would run around freely, committing crime after crime, with no remorse or punishment. People would spend much more time and energy trying to protect their life and those of their family rather than being a productive part of their community, and nothing would ever guarantee the safety of the population.

The proponents of anarchy claim that removing government from society would restore absolute freedom to the people. That’s not entirely true. While you will be able to do absolutely everything you’ve ever been forbidden to do, such as running around naked in the middle of Times Square, it is worthy to note that nothing can stop others from stepping on your freedoms as well. What would happen in a state of anarchy? The strongest, most vile and brutal individuals of society would gain control through terror and impose their policies on the people, without any legitimacy apart from the tyrannical fear they create. The idea of a successful anarchist state is pure utopia, and has historically led to more tyranny and oppression (take Lenin and Stalin, for instance).


(This little drawing made my day, thought I'd share.)


So what do I mean when I say “freedom”, in opposition to “anarchy”? I mean we should have a government that emphasizes economic and personal liberties, and works not to restrict them, but to make sure nobody will. The government should be there to protect you from violent crimes, to protect you from injustice, to protect you from those who want to restrict your freedom, rather than tolerate your way of life. The government should be the protection of your rights and freedoms, not a despotic authority figure that imposes its way of life on the population.

Long story short, anarchy leads to illegitimate tyranny by leaving the power to the mercy of the population’s ruthless and powerful. Freedom through legitimate minimal government will lead to the stable development of communities, in economic and social aspects, as well as the thriving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2 comments:

  1. Jacqueline refuses to allow me to post in here, so I will comment instead.

    I am a communist (yes, I am a friend to Jackie for NOT political reasons). While I agree with much of what you have written, I feel honour-bound to mention that Stalin and Lenin were NOT working towards the best interests of a truly Communist government. Their government was Communist in name, Socialist in its very nature. Communism perhaps cannot work (and certainly hasnt yet--the closest the human race has ever got to Communism is current Cuba), but I think sending the message that Stalin and Lenin were attempting a true anarchist state is warped. They were power hungry men who left little positive legacy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see where you're coming from, and I'll agree with you on the fact that Stalin's and Lenin's were not working for the best interests of a truly Communist form of governance. But this is exactly what happens when you completly remove government from society : power-hungry people take the freedom away from the people. But what happens when there is too much government? Well the power-hungry find a way into the institutions to impose their views on others. Either case scenario is unwanted, we need government to prevent corruption and freedom-theft, but not for much more.

    ReplyDelete