Anarchy: The Anti-Utopia

"Utopia is not an option."

-David Friedman

Utopia literally means "no place." Thomas More's Utopia is a novel about a place that can't exist and is impossible to ever occur. Therefore to advocate for a Utopian society is a contradiction. To advocate for Utopia is to say, "I advocate for what can't exist. If it can exist it ain't utopia, so the type of social organization I advocate is one where it's impossible to ever come to fruition. If for some miracle it does, then by definition it ain't no place and ceases to be a Utopia." To actually argue for utopia means one doesn't understand what utopia means and only reveals the ignorance of the person who argues for it.

Anarchism is a society without a group of people that hold a monopoly of legitimized force. Anarchism is where no group of people have the moral and legal authority to commit actions where it would be considered immoral if anyone else besides those calling themselves "government" committed them. Anarchism is no guarantee of anything. Anarchism doesn't mean universal nonviolence and peace. Anarchism doesn't guarantee that poverty will be eradicated, that all needs will be met, or even that hegemonic relationships won't occur. I consider myself a free market anti-statist. Anarchism in many senses is a misnomer. I want the state to die. That doesn't mean that there won't be individuals who successfully rule others, but it does mean that those who do rule others won't get the legal and moral sanction from the masses. In other words, an anarchist society is not one devoid of a ruling class, but one devoid of a ruling glass with legal and moral immunity. Sure, such rulers might be able to be undetected and hence can commit violence without punishment, but the moral sanction won't be there. Anarchism is a society with the mask off, where violence is called violence and recognized for what it is. The mafia and other tribal rulers may still exist, but they will get the around the same moral and legal sanction from the masses as they do now, which is none at all. 

 Anarchists are constantly asked how problems will be solved without government intervention. When Ron Paul ran for president in 2012, tyranny apologist and propagandist Wolf Blitzer (who is a wolf and a blitz) asked him, "If poor people can't afford health insurance, are you saying they should die in the streets?" In other words, "If the government fails to nationalize and take over a certain industry does that mean certain people will go without?" In other words, "I am a utopian who does not believe in scarcity. Under a government NO ONE will ever die. EVERYONE will get whatever they need. No poor people will do without. Scarcity, tradeoffs, and shortages are a market creation. With the state none of this will occur. Now if we could just nationalize everything, the world will be better off indeed." If I were Ron Paul (or if I were asked such an inane question) I would (being the Jew I am), answer back with a question, such as, "If the government doesn't nationalize food, are you saying that those who are too poor to afford food should die in the streets. If government doesn't nationalize cars are you saying that poor people can't afford to go to work and hence starve by becoming poorer? Are you saying if government doesn't nationalize paper, only the rich can afford to write? If government doesn't nationalize everything only the rich will be able to afford things, and those who are too poor will whither away and die. I think the only solution is to have full-blown socialism, a la the Soviet Union, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka North Korea), in order to ensure the poor get all that they need, so no one ever goes without or dies."

The reality is that reality is uncertain. There are no guarantees in life, except for death. Anarchism (to quote the great and first free market anarchist Gustave de Molinari), "is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. Government is a guarantee that some will."