#57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Tao Te Ching, trans. Stephen Mitchell*

—This almost sounds like the ideal held by modern Libertarians. I thought of the passage tonight after reading an anarchist’s comments, Thomas Knapp’s from Knappster:

If the state had to pass the same test for “feasibility” as anarchism, Bell would find it a failure as well. In case nobody’s noticed, the state hasn’t eliminated violations of rights — or proven equitable in remedying them. It hasn’t eliminated crime, it hasn’t eliminated poverty, it hasn’t eliminated inequality, it hasn’t eliminated war, it hasn’t eliminated violence, it hasn’t eliminated any social problem, and in many cases it has exacerbated or even embodied those problems.

I suspect that the state itself is a bad thing, but that the idea of the state ameliorates the violent passions of citizens of that state. Quite obviously, the murders committed in the U.S. last year were committed despite the threat of punishment (despite the actual and the abstract “state”), but even more would have been committed without that threat. Etc. Does the Knappster believe that an abolition of the state would make all criminals suddenly cease being criminal? Well, technically, it would: They’d no longer be breaking any laws, since there wouldn’t be clearly defined laws. And, yes, the more laws a state makes, the more criminals the state shall have, if the activity covered by those laws isn’t abolished with their creation. (Clearly, such activity doesn’t cease altogether; so we end up with more criminals.)

Anarchy is — quite unfortunately — a dead-end path:

1. As the Knappster admits, a viable and beneficial anarchy would necessarily be utopian. Now, how to convince everyone living without a State to create, and safeguard, such utopia…
2. The “goal” of anarchy is really the goal of instituting a system of anarchy, isn’t it? I mean, how does one go about the systematic creation of an absence of established system?

RE: that last point. The Knappster suggests that laws governing society are created naturally by the marketplace and by general human interactions. In fact, on a day-to-day basis, people are quite governed by custom, propriety, and the desire for peace (or the fear of its absence) far more than they are governed by the state. An abolition of the state wouldn’t abolish such natural law — and, that’s what he’s talking about — but would likely strengthen it. For instance, men and women who see homosexuality as a threat could establish the “natural law” that homosexuals ought to be killed, or castrated, or made to service their young men between battles. You get the idea, surely? (Admittedly, the last example was a bit far-fetched. But, hey, anything is possible without the interference of the state, right?) The ideal of the state held by small-government advocates is that it should exist only to ensure the rights of the citizens living within the boundaries of that state’s influence. Nowadays, of course, the state makes more decisions than the citizen makes about how best to ensure those rights — and even what “rights” exist or do not exist, even extending the jurisdiction of the state across international boundaries.

Take for example the constructionist view of the Constitution of the U.S.: Rights do not exist unless the state creates those rights; anything not literally and explicitly outlined by the Constitution is potentially verboten. The view that rights are handed out by the state has left a wide-open arena for state influence and control over the lives of its citizenry. Citizens must constantly challenge the activity of the state to see if it stands up to the Constitution: a clear indication that the majority opinion is in favor of at least a mildly constructionist point of view. What may we do, what may we not do: The citizenry ask this constantly and constantly refer to the Constitution. (If they refer to “established law,” they are referring to the Constitution, since established law generally has withstood Constitutional challenge.)

Many citizens do not even bother to challenge the state’s control over their lives, by seeking a Constitutional challenge or otherwise. So I’m reminded of point #1 above, and wonder how such a citizenry can itself decide to create and safeguard a utopian anarchy when it has spent so long looking toward “a state” for guidance — and I’m also reminded of the movie The Matrix.

Perhaps my comments will seem anti-humanist. While I believe that the vast majority of humans are not only capable but also willing to make the productive, amiable, and generous decisions that allow for peaceful interactions without state interference or guidance, I’m also reminded of many instances of having witnessed faulty logic in action. This is the same argument I have against objectivism: logic and reason are good things to have, but so often the individual using logic isn’t the best person to evaluate the soundness of that logic. We need a system of checks and balances; we need verification from outside sources. We need a resounding NO or a resounding YES for verification. (We may always disregard the judgments of others, if we choose; but the others will speedily correct us of that error — or, we will correct them, ultimately.) Good intentions do not make an infallible individual.

One might disregard all of human history and say that the natural law created by person-to-person interactions will suffice; but again, I’ve witnessed many instances of conglomerate thinking in groups of people who share common ideas, ideals, superstitions, and material goals: they are no more right than the individual operating under a false belief, but they do have the bullet law behind them. That is, any interaction between humans that is not congenial can ultimately be reduced to violent conclusions, and a group of private citizens can wield such a threat as easily as a government or other established institution.

I would love to believe in anarchy — it is a dream of mine, when it isn’t a nightmare — but I am not confident that we are anywhere near achieving it. Our inability to coexist without turmoil is due to our inability to find solutions to the problems that arise between individuals. In the future, perhaps knowledge and understanding, and the ability to find solutions to resolve the frictions between individuals on a person-to-person basis, will achieve universal status — but I doubt it, since children are born every day in ignorance. So education will be key.

I suspect that viable and beneficial large-scale anarchy will occur naturally, if at all, and according to the Tao: it will just happen, when people no longer have a need for government. (I suppose it already happens in the smaller scale, in pockets of social interaction away from the prying eyes of government.)

* Another translation of #57 of the Tao Te Ching can be found here, for those who like such comparisons.