Anarchy 10π

As an anarchist, the most common reaction I get from people is the "what if" scenario of everyone one suddenly being left to fend for them in a Hobbesian Jungle. My response is that this scenario is a logical fallacy for two reasons. First is the assumption that human beings are inherently incapable of ruling themselves. If that were so, then it would stand to reason that we'd be even less capable of ruling each other. However, I will grant that not all human are able or willing to practice self control, which leads me to my second point.

Where ever people gather together they tend to divide responsibilities amongst each other, and one of those responsibilities is security and protection. I don't think that position is in any danger of disappearing. The people don't want that to happen. Even rapists and wife-beaters generally don't want to live in a community where they in turn become fair game. Oddly enough, central governments do not generally provide local protection in the first place. This service is almost the exclusive realm of local governance. And I don't think that is going away anytime soon if ever.

What I do think is on its way out is the notion that persons are bound by the mere geographic and ethnic circumstances of their birth. This development is not exactly new. This process has been going on for centuries, but advances in technology over the last couple of centuries have seriously accelerated it.

In this sense governments may parallel the course of religion. Traditionally religion acted as the lawgiver for a society, but religion, at least in the west, has become relatively anarchic. People are free to choose among many religions or none at all with little regard to the circumstances of their birth, yet churches continue to thrive. However, they are very different animals from what they used to be. Frankly, threats of damnation and excommunication no longer inspire quite the same fear in the general populace. Inorder to survive, religions have had to adapt to provide some form of personal benefit to their adherents. This transition is not pretty. It was messy when this concept first appeared in Christianity, and it is messier still as this concept spreads into the Muslim World.

My opinion is that governments will also follow this model. They will exist on a local level, and also as overlapping virtual entities. Like religions, we will be free to pick up and move to whichever one suits us, and interact with others around the world in virtual systems which may have very different protocols.

Finally, my earlier allusion to those unwilling or unable to practice self-control begs one question. What about the people who don't want to partake in this type of model? There's no easy answer except that the situation is essentially the same right now. Those people currently ignore the law already. Sure some of them get caught, but spend any time in the penal system, and you'll find that the most common crime is aggravated stupidity. Frankly, the people that government currently protects us from, are the same ones who are utterly dependent upon it for their survival. The ones crafty enough to survive absent some sort of protection, also manage to keep out of reach of government attempts to catch them--or worse, they become part of the government itself.

In conclusion, my anarchism is not some Utopian vision of the way things ought to be. Instead it is an observation of the way things are, and an acknowledgment that the nation-state will one day go the way of tribalism and feudalism for the same reasons: Increased mobility and increased availability of information. Each step, has allowed a greater degree of liberty, and I don't see any reason for that trend to reverse.