The Problem with Anarchy

A Life Without Law.

     I dream of a world where there is no need for law. Being an optimist, I think that one day humanity will be, in general, motivated towards the greater good of the whole, that people wouldn't always have selfish desires, that I could walk down the street without worrying about being robbed or murdered. I dream of a world where these things happen without the necessity of fear to keep the populace in line. This world does not yet exist, in case you were wondering. Anarchy is not possible because humanity lacks causal responsibility, humanity believes that its good intentions exonerate it of the negative down-stream effects of its actions, humanity believes that positive input means that its actions are necessarily good, and humanity bases its system of morality on the fear of consequences.

    The problem with anarchy, as I see it, is that most humans are almost completely driven by their instinctual needs to receive positive input from their peers and avoid consequences for their actions. When the consequences are removed, the definition of ethicality suddenly become more liberal. People do not yield at a stop light to protect the safety of other drivers or bystanders, they do it to avoid receiving ticket. Such a thing could be seen very clearly on a daily basis in any suburban neighborhood where people are speeding along with no concern for the potential bystander. They do it because they know that they can get away with it. Likewise, rarely does a murderer blindly kill their victim unless it is a crime of passion. Usually, they perceive that the risk of being caught is low, thus the crime of murder is justifiable. 

     There are other examples that I should draw upon that aren't so clear cut. Bullying and peer pressure are two that always bothered me--especially the most common justification for them. When I ask someone about their abusive behavior, they usually give me some watered-down rhetoric about free speech, or how it is not illegal to verbally abuse someone. So then is it morally justifiable to totally thrash someone elses self-esteem because there are no legal consequences? I think the case is mounting. Believe it or not, I had heard similar defenses in regards to domestic violence. You wouldn't believe some of the shit I've seen.

     Another reason why anarchy is not a viable solution to our problems is that most humans, in my perception, lack causal responsibility and furthermore think that their good intentions exonerate them from the negative repercussions of their actions. One really simple example may be found daily at any local park where people are feeding wild animals. 

     It is the common perception that feeding wild animals is acceptable because it's a friendly gesture toward the animal and people are able to see the beasts of the wild up close. What many of these people--amazingly enough--don't care to contemplate is the down-stream effects of their actions. These could be manifold: a. the animals could become too naturalized to human contact, or b. the animal, relying on human food all its life, may loose some of its natural hunting or scavenging skills, or c. the food you are feeding them could contain a cumulative reproductive toxin, which is safe for humans, but dangerous to certain animals. In the case of "a," the animal could come too close to a game hunter, when otherwise the animal would be weary of such things. Also a human may stumble into the animal--not knowing that it was naturalized and acting nervous--could find him/herself the victim of an animal attack. In the case of "b," the animal looses its natural borne ability to search for food and is now dependent of humans for food. In the case of "c," the animal looses its ability to reproduce, or experiences some other toxicological effect. It is the general perception of the initiators of these kinds events that they are not at fault because they originally meant well. I say that the down-stream effects are the responsibility of the initiators.

      Let us return to the person being bullied. Even though this person is subject to decisions that they make of their own free will, we still have to appreciate the effects we may have on the decision making skills of others. After all, are we not merely a product of our genetic inheritance and past experiences? Perhaps Jimmy wouldn't have gone to drugs or killed himself, if you weren't so hard on him in the early years. He could have very well made different decisions, if life were different. We need to be aware that we are part of the experience of every entity we meet. In a real way, we are actually part and parcel of each identity we encounter.

     To recapitulate, humans are incredibly self-centered beings, even when they mean well. We, as a species, are not evolved enough to handle anarchy responsibly for the following reasons:

1. We base our understanding of ethics on legal repercussions.
2. We perceive that positive input from our peers means that our actions are necessarily good.
3. We believe that our good intentions exonerate us from the negative consequences of our actions.
4. We lack causal responsibility.

Anarchy will not be possible until we remove these defects from our character. That notwithstanding, I envision a time when we will be able to overcome these defects and soar to new heights in a spiritually based utopia.