Bad Objections to Anarchy: The Historical Objection
• John Vandivier
One objection to anarchy is the historical objection. \"Anarchy has never been tried before, so it's risky.\" Or, \"Anarchy is historically associated with violence.\" These are two separate objections and we will cover both here.
It's never been tried before
Yes it has! Even today, the vast majority of everything you do is voluntary, or anarchic. This should be the historical argument for anarchy, not an objection.
The American Frontier was also a great example of an anarchy with no formal rules. As David Friedman anticipates would occur in such a situation, private security flourished and order was actually well kept. Not to mention the explosive economic growth in those times.
In a few years the American population will forget that health care was ever created on the private market. While we still remember, remember! It used to be cheaper, faster, better, stronger before Obamacare and increased government controls, supposedly to better us, hurt us.
Now to the crux of the issue: What the objection really means is that no formal government has ever officially declared anarchy as the political system of a country. Of course this is true! It will always remain true for two reasons, and that does not mean that anarchy hasn't been tried or isn't preferable. It merely means that anarchy is necessarily an informal political institution, which is a good thing as we will discuss in a second.
The two reasons that it is not simply a historical fact but also a logical necessity that formal government never has and never will officially declare anarchy are twofold:
- It is not in their interest to do so.
- Even if they did so, it would be logically absurd.