Anarchism

 I think what motivates anarchism as an ideology is a wrong concept of freedom which is seen as freedom from authority or complete self-determination but this concept is impossible. Perhaps the preachers of anarchism feel that the root of all evil is submission to authority and hence if we are free from authority we are then free from evil. But an anarchic state would be the same as Hobbesian state of nature where everyone would have a right over everything. So in such a state my freedom would exclude yours, so we would have an either-or situation. Or to put it in other words my freedom would cancel yours, so if I am free you cannot be. Clearly in such a situation there can be no rights and no freedom; you don’t get either without certain limits and a right to everything dilutes those rights and freedom that is exclusive ceases to be freedom at all. Hence the correct idea of freedom demands not exclusion but inclusion for it is inextricable bound by the idea of good. This is easy to see, consider for instance that you end up buying products you do not need based on advertisements. In this case you think you have made a free choice but you haven’t because if you can be manipulated to act in a certain way over and over again, then you cannot be free. Freedom implies to act for one’s own good which in this case you haven’t because you were swayed from it prompted by an external stimulus.

Concerning the need for a state one can see that individual aspirations would clash and cancel each other out unless there is a general principle we all agree upon and can reconcile ourselves with and which principle is the source of legitimacy of our decisions and actions. To actually bring this principle into force i.e. to actually reconcile individual aspirations with general consensus in a way where none of our genuine interests, individually and collectively are hampered, we need a third party in order both to persuade and enforce. If this third party is however an individual then its mediation would be based on its own will or its whims and fancies. But if it is based on certain moral values we all can agree upon (I will return to this point again), then we get a state or government whose authority consists in putting these values into action since they are not self-implementing.

It can be objected that there are no moral values we can agree upon. That is not however correct. Disagreements are of two kinds, one is about what is right and what is wrong, both parties think they are in the right, so in this case the principle is the same but the implementation is questioned. Another conflict is about right and wrong or the principle themselves. Take for example the game of chess, when two players are playing according to rules, through the rules of the game one winner is selected and another is declared a loser. But for this to happen both players have to play the game according to its rules. I may cheat but what I cannot do is make the rules according to my own whims and fancies for otherwise there is no game to be played. Disagreements in current times are not about right or wrong, but about who gets to decide right or wrong - might is right. It is power shedding the need for justification for it wants to become its own justification. And that is what should be called an anarchic state - power without justice.