The Radical Mind of Insurgo Casca

"Voluntary trade is the fundamental premise of the market and it is involuntary trade that creates the first primitive stages of government."

   At times anarchists are confronted with the possibility that after an anarchist society is established it will revert back into a governmental state. In addition, it is presupposed that this governmental state may or may not be more totalitarian than the one left by the anarchists. This is an excellent topic to discuss and truly pinpoints the practical weaknesses in our philosophy. The fact that a percentage of man will do wrong in some way or another gives credence to the possibility of a monopoly government rising in an anarchist state. That said, it is important to understand that the anarchist state is not rid of government but instead that government-esque services will be provided by consenting parties. If a protection business runs a muck, which it could, it would need to be disobeyed and stopped. Though a rogue defense agency in an anarchist society is highly unlikely, it is a possibility and we must deal with this scenario. As I have said in the past, the key to success in an anarchist state is the elimination of the legitimacy, and therefore acceptance, of violent action on any level. As long as the people of the anarchist state do not obey a rogue defense agency and band together to defeat it, the society will continue to be free. That is why anarchism is more of a moral system than a political system. By accepting anarchism, one illustrates that they understand the principles of a productive, life-embracing system of ethics.

   I also feel uneasy when individuals give examples of how defense agencies would work without government or how an anarchist society would comprise itself. I used to write about this subject quite heavily but have since abandoned it. I do not feel that this is something anarchists could truly understand and I find it somewhat wasteful to discuss the topic. Though I respect the works of Hoppe, Morris and Linda Tannehill, and Rothbard, I do not believe that their literature on the subject of the makeup of defense agencies is anywhere near correct. Defense agencies may be, and probably will be, very different than those the authors have noted. I must also express my belief that their work isn't completely useless in these areas. It is an interesting thought experiment to figure out how a protection business might run but these writings can achieve nothing more than complex guesses. That is why I believe it is important to stress the violent nature of the governmental state in a proper moral framework.

   What is most important to understand is that individuals are entitled to their property and their life, no matter what. The fine details to a free society can never truly be comprehended. I do not believe in government because private defense agencies work better. I do not believe in government because I should have ownership of my body and property.