The following post was written in response to an article an anarchist friend of mine wrote. I did not comment on it on his blog, mainly because the reply would be off the topic of the thread it was in, but also because the reply seems to warrant a more thorough dissection. The objections raised are quite common. They are also based upon ignorance, logical fallacy and anger.

Here is the complete post:

"...You're right. I don't need public schools, or roads or stoplights or police departments. I can teach myself, drive just fine over the rocky ground, and fight crime with my machete. I prefer to play my soccer games without a ref, and eat food from places that don't believe in inspections. Hey, I trust the banks and the insurance companies. They'll do what's right--they'll play fair if government would just leave them alone. I would love to live on the island with Piggy in The Lord of the Flies--what fun--or perhaps move to the Sudan where anarchy rule--no taxes! AND I'll get to put out my own fires and start my own heart beating again..." - R

This form of argument (a form of straw man argument) argues at best from a missing proposition or two and is essentially a waste of time and ethereal paper space. To make such an argument usually shows that the author has put very little, if any, work into developing any form of critical thinking.

First section:

"...You're right. I don't need public schools, or roads or stoplights or police departments..."

On the subject of the public schools. 'R' (the author of the post) is absolutely right, they do not need a public school! A private school, home school, or even life experiences can suffice for an adequate education. For the most part public schools tend to turn out the most illiterate and uneducated people out of the entire list of educational opportunities.

Neither the article in question, nor the comments on the article ever made the suggestion that people don't need roads, stoplights, or police departments. It didn't even suggest that people don't need public schools! This list is an invention of the author, giving this person an imaginary punching bag to pummel. It does very little to change, or even entice, an anarchist to consider the author's viewpoint.

Next section:

"...I can teach myself, drive just fine over the rocky ground, and fight crime with my machete..."

All of these things might be true. I do not know this person, so I have to take their word for it. The implication (which runs throughout this post) is that the anarchist is anti-social, neo-Luddite and ignorant - wishing to be the only person on the planet. Again, this is a form of a straw man argument - an imaginary opponent. While it is possible to drive just fine over rocky ground ('just fine' is a subjective judgment) its a lot easier to drive on prepared surfaces. True anarchists do not desire the destruction of roads, etc.

It is of course possible to fight crime with a machete. Personally I would use a more potent weapon, but if all I had was a machete, so be it. You use what you have.

The implication of these sentences, however, seem to be found in parallelism:

A) 'I don't need public schools' and 'I can teach myself'

B) 'I don't need roads or stoplights' and 'I can drive just fine over the rocky ground'

C) 'I don't need police departments' and 'I can fight crime with a machete'

In response to parallel 'A' - the choice is false. The option is not 'public schools' or 'self teaching.' It is 'public schools' vs. 'private schools,' 'home schools,' 'no education,' 'life experiences,' 'self teaching,' and most likely any number of other options or combinations of the list.

Hence, the purpose for writing 'A' that way has but one purpose: to infer that the anarchist, who objects to 'public' schooling, instead wants everyone to be ignorant, illiterate slack-jawed yokels. Of course, this sounds a lot meaner than 'R' might want to actually say in public, so the meaning is disguised behind obfuscatory phrasing.

The anarchist objects to 'public' schooling because of many reasons: both moral and pragmatic.

In response to parallel 'B' the choice is not so clear. This is mostly due to the poor communicative aspect of the post, but it seems to me that if it is indeed true that one does not need roads, then one had better consider driving over rocky ground 'just fine'.

However, the purpose for writing 'B" seems to be the implication that since the anarchist does not want the State to build roads, the anarchist must therefore want NO roads at all. Here again, the logical error is a false choice, based upon the assumption that only the State knows how to make roads. This is an error. I know how to make a road, and I am not the State. Even if the issues comes down to simple funding - the choice is simply not 'Taxes' or 'no roads.' Other options exist, and a person with critical thinking skills can list off alternatives and then offer pro and con reasons.

In response to parallel 'C', the idea expressed is that unless the state provides protective services, there are none, period. But then, ironically, 'R' manages to present an alternative: self defense (OK, it's with a machete, but it is still self defense!) The use of an alternative to show there are no alternatives defies all forms of rationality!

In short, all three of the above parallels are logical fallacies, either written on purpose by the author (hence deliberate lies) or ignorantly (lack of critical thinking skills.)

But the diatribe goes on:

"...I prefer to play my soccer games without a ref, and eat food from places that don't believe in inspections...."

I don't. I find that the rules found in games make the game. I also like the fact that I can buy safe food. There are two separate phrases here to examine:

First, "...I prefer to play my soccer games without a ref..."

While you are certainly free to play a game without rules, my guess is that you won't be playing it long - and most likely only once. After that first time, you might find it hard to locate opponents (however, consider 'Calvinball'.)

The inference here, however, is that anarchists do not accept rules. This is both a direct contradiction to the actual word 'anarchist' as well as a contradiction to what anarchists write over and over and over and over and over.... I use two specific rules as a guide for human interaction, and a third that forms a sort of basis for them:

First rule: It is morally wrong for a person or group of persons to initiate or delegate the initiation of force against another person or group of persons.

Second rule: It is morally wrong to modify someone's property without their express, voluntary permission.

Basis for these rules: You own your property.

These are the rules which anarchist apply to all of human interaction. It is because we try to adhere to these rules that objections like the ones 'R' raises happen in the first place. The objections arise because people like 'R' do not believe in private ownership, nor do they believe it is morally wrong to aggress against anyone.

Hence, the objection that the anarchist wishes for a rule-less society is false. In fact, to claim otherwise, when there is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary is simply a lie.

I also have a Christian rule I follow: "...It is also morally wrong to lie..."

The second phrase also attacks a straw man: "and eat food from places that don't believe in inspections...."

You can if you want to. I refuse to. I have a strong urge to remain in this life as long as I can. The idea here is that the anarchist wants to allow people to sell tainted food. Actually, this is quite true. Feel as free as you want to eat at one of those establishments. Fools and masochists are about all that would frequent such a place.

The inference however, is that only the State can inspect food. This means that the Seal of Good Housekeeping, and Consumer Reports, etc., are lying, cheating, dangerous institutions, while the State has only your best interest in mind. (Pay no attention to those lobbyists over there...)

Suppose a cafe sells bad food. How long will they stay in business if that information gets out? How long will they stay in business if they face criminal penalties for the initiation of force against their customers (poisoning.) Is not the greatest incentive to provide good service to customers the fact that those customers come back - and are willing to pay your prices? What is wrong with consumer groups publishing reviews of establishments - leaving you free to frequent them or not?

The issue the anarchist has with the State doing the inspecting is that we are forced at gunpoint, if necessary, to provide inspections. If you want the state to provide inspections: donate voluntarily to the State! Just don't force others who with to use private inspectors to also pay for the State inspection.

The next phrasing refers to some populist dogma:

"...Hey, I trust the banks and the insurance companies. They'll do what's right--they'll play fair if government would just leave them alone..."

The anarchist doesn't trust them. We wish to reward them for good customer service and satisfaction, and penalize them for the opposite. We do not stand for any form of subsidizing or immunities from penalties. A bank that steals from its customers needs to 1) go out of business, and 2) pay the criminal penalties.

'R' is right (to a certain extent) with the phrase '--they'll play fair if government would just leave them alone..." The problems is that the phrase is missing some wording. It should be:

"--they'll play fair if government would just leave them alone to be held accountable by the public..."

No one plays fair without some form of accounting. And if government left them alone, that accounting would settle right in: if you don't like what a bank is doing with your money, or how it treats you - the go to another bank. The key to a successful business is giving the customer what they want. Period. Without the State 'insuring' the bank against loss - it would be up to that bank ALONE to remain in business. If it messed up, it would fold. If the government were not involved, its officers would be held accountable for the loss to the customer base - and would be required to make restitution. That threat alone is the only regulation necessary for banks to treat you right.

Almost through!

"...I would love to live on the island with Piggy in The Lord of the Flies--what fun--"

I wouldn't, but if you wanted to live in such an environment - feel free!

"...or perhaps move to the Sudan where anarchy rule--no taxes!..."

The fact that there are 'no taxes' in the Sudan is accidentally coincident with anarchism. Anarchy does not exist in the Sudan (at best, chaos does, which is a contrary of anarchy) Look up the definition of nihilism.

"...AND I'll get to put out my own fires and start my own heart beating again..."

Its a good thing to put out fires you start - its called responsibility. Waiting for someone else to come clean up your mess is an abandonment of responsible behavior, and one reason things are in such a mess right now.

However, I believe this is an implication that ONLY the State can extinguish fires (Smokey the Bear was wrong!)

Even simply considering the act of dousing a fire (even a large one) seems to contradict the argument that only government agents can extinguish fires. I've seen groups of private citizens put out fires. Must have been a hallucination.

The objection to State run firefighting operations is the same as the objection to any other government organization. It is funded through theft. If you wish to pay the State to douse fires, feel free to do so - donate away. But do not put a gun to my head to make me donate as well. It is morally wrong to steal from 'A' to benefit 'B'.

"...and start my own heart beating again..."

OK, that's an awesome talent! For me, I rely on a medic. Interestingly enough, my doctor is not a government agent! I wonder how he gets by each day! Also wonder how in the world I am as healthy a I am! Relying on someone who ISN'T a government employee! What is wrong with me?

What is a crime?

Why do we accuse people of crimes? Why are some things considered crimes and others not? What is a crime? A generalized definition of crime (based upon the idea of criminal law) is:

A crime is an act punishable by law.

I argue that not only is that a weak definition (it isn’t even a definition, in the actual sense of the word) but that it is also unacceptable and even criminal in itself.

First off, laws don’t punish anything. At times they prescribe punishments, but there has never been a law capable of even breathing, let alone punishing someone. People punish. Laws describe (laws of physics or formal logic) or prescribe (impose, order, stipulate). Hence the definition must first become:

A crime is an act for which a law prescribes punishment.

This is still an extremely weak definition. In order to go any further, I propose that we continue tightening it.

What is an act? There are several uses for the word; I think the best one for our purposes it that it describes the process of doing or performing something. It is the behavior and thought of a person. So we can tighten the definition to say:

A crime is any behavior or thought for which a law prescribes punishment.

It is still weak – and not only that, but there are some fundamental problems that are becoming more apparent as this definition becomes better. To make it even clearer, I’d like to clarify the word punishment. Punishment is a penalty inflicted on an offender – whatever the penalty is. The term ‘justice’ infers that the penalty for an offense matches the offense. In any event, the definition becomes:

A crime is any behavior or thought for which a law prescribes a penalty.

Finally, before I address the problems inherent in this definition, I’d like to clarify the term ‘law’ used here. Law, in this instance, is a rule of conduct established by custom, agreement, or authority. Hence, my tightened definition has become:

A crime is any behavior or thought for which a rule of conduct established by custom, agreement, or authority prescribes a penalty.

With this definition we have a strong foundation to discuss what I consider some fundamental problems. The most obvious is the problem of penalizing thought. While this is at best extremely difficult, it also militates against what even the most anti-libertarian thinker holds to be reasonable or prudent. It is difficult, if not impossible to know what a person is actually thinking, and the process of punishing a person for their thoughts is not a widely practiced thing. Perhaps we can eliminate the term ‘thought’ from our definition.

But this is a problem in itself. The word act includes thoughts – by its very nature. However, in the effort to at least appear to be a free society, let’s just elect to leave thought out of the equation (that is an option based upon the definition of law included in our total definition, anyway!) So let’s restate the definition of a crime to be:

A crime is any behavior for which a rule of conduct established by custom, agreement, or authority prescribes a penalty.

Now a question arises: is this dictum universal – even in a localized geopolitical area? If it is universal the conclusion is obvious: everyone in that area MUST obey these laws or be held accountable and face whatever penalty is laid forth.

Now we come to the main problems in our definition of law. If a law is a rule of conduct established by custom, agreement, or authority how do we determine a law?

Throughout history, there have been many ways. One of the most famous is the 10 commandments from the Christian Scriptures. They derive their power from the authority of the author of the laws (God.) However, not all people submit themselves to this authority. At this point, then, how are these laws to be enforced? There are two ways – either voluntarily or through coercion. The idea of voluntary submission to this set of laws is not going to be a universal thing – not everyone will voluntarily “Have No Other Gods before the Lord.” Not all will voluntarily “Honor the Sabbath” The choice is to either coerce these people to comply or else those who choose not to obey the laws can be left to their own behavior. Are these laws to be universal? Then all must obey them.

Since we don’t operate based upon the authority of God for our laws*, perhaps there’s another authority that we use. In the past, Kings and Priests have assumed the power to dictate laws that bound people. Each King and each Priest would decide what sort of behavior (or thoughts) they wanted observed, and the punishments to mete out depending on severity. This worked well (for rulers) for a long time, but eventually people began to understand that law was not to be based upon whim but upon external controls that included ALL men. Kings are subject to the same laws that the average person is. There were a few universal rules that seemed to fit all people. The process of democracy was assumed to be capable of determining what other laws could be enacted by a voluntary choice of people.

This raises problems that most people assume have been cleared – laws that don’t fit everyone (i.e., the law on the Sabbath) are simply disregarded. In other words, the rules have become based on custom or agreement rather than on authority. We have chosen to obey some of the laws and not the others (for example, we still tend to frown on theft). However, have these problems actually cleared up? Or are they still existent? Are laws based upon agreement any more binding than those based upon the authority of God or King? If this agreement is not universal, is it still binding?

A democracy is simply a rule of a majority over a minority. As long as most people decide something, the minority is obliged to follow it. This is the fundamental law of democracy. It does not take into account the actual people over which it hold sway anymore than a King does over his subjects. Is a democracy any improvement over a King? Well, it certainly has a larger group of people dictating how the rest will behave (and think!)

So far, our definition of a crime is:

A crime is any behavior for which a rule of conduct established by custom, agreement, or authority prescribes a penalty.

In order for a law to be legitimate, I argue that it must be just. My quick definition of justice is that it is consistent with what is morally right. Something that is morally right (defined on the horizontal alignment of political philosophy – between human beings) is that which universally applies to all, recognizing the value of each person involved. (In a political weblog I will not make a vertical definition of my terms – that is, the relationship between humanity and God.) Hence, a just law is one that realizes the value of those involved and does not devalue them in any way.

Now we approach the definition given for a crime one more time and look more closely at it. It is fairly apparent to most of us that some things are definitely wrong. For example, sneaking up behind an innocent person and killing them is usually considered wrong. So are theft, rape, and kidnapping. These things are considered universally wrong, although it is wise advice to formally define them before administering punishment for their commission.

In fact, if you look at these things, you can see how the basic libertarian axiom applies:

If no human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation, then no one may rape, murder or steal from another person – ever.

However, there are many things that are called crimes in our society that do not involve violence, or the threat of it. This could mean that either the Libertarian axiom is not substantial enough to form a basis for the concepts of criminal law, or it could mean that the definition of crime is not complete enough.

The issue lies in how we empower our legal system. If our laws are based upon some form of authority, we have a fairly easy way to determine if any particular behavior leaves the person doing it liable for punishment. If God says not to work on the Sabbath and we do, we are breaking a law. If the King says we have to marry before age 18, and we don’t, again, we break a law. But what happens if we do not have these authorities to make rules for us to live by?

We’ve come up with a solution – in essence we use popular demand to create the rules. The democratic system we have developed uses laws formed by the pressure of a majority to control the actions of a minority (those whom we then determine to be criminals if they partake in the prohibited activity.) This works, to a certain extent. We rely upon the common sense of a large number of people to limit the notion that a bad law might be passed.

However, there is nothing to stop a majority of people from determining that any activity can be punished! What is missing is the idea of right and wrong – a question of morality. What replaces morality – or rather, what becomes morality is not justice but utilitarian pragmatism – what works the best for the largest amount of people becomes law.

Yet Murray Rothbard makes a very good comment here: “…even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority…”

What makes the laws of a majority better than the laws of a minority? Is there such a thing as a ‘better’ or ‘worse’ law? Is it ok to murder if a lot of people want to do it? Or, is there some external standard by which a law can be judged to be moral?

It is from this need that libertarians have derived the axiom of Zero Aggression. I propose that it is an excellent basis for criminal law. In fact, on a horizontal level (that is, relationships between humans) it is the only one needed. The reason is simple. It places the maximum amount of value on the life, the person, of every human being. It involves the idea that human beings are the owners of their persons and property, and the only moral means of exchanging property is through voluntary exchange. No one can take another’s life or property by initiation of force.

How does this apply, however, to what in our society are considered crimes? The short answer is – it doesn’t very well! Most things that are considered crimes do not involve the initiation of force against another human being. I propose that we try a totally different definition of crime: one that is inclusive in its self and does not require the whim of a majority, an individual, or even a dictate written on a piece of paper. I propose a definition of the term ‘crime’ that forms a basis for creating laws, rather than using laws as a basis for creating crimes, which is how things work in our society right now.

A crime is an act by which one person harms the person or property of another.

This is not a new definition, but it is immensely better than the previous one we had been working with. It is more precise, and it leaves very little to be misinterpreted. Unfortunately, it does mean that many things we want to stop others from doing suddenly become un-criminal. For example, drug use, or drunk driving, or prostitution, or gambling. None of these things in themselves are acts by which one person harms another.

This does not mean they are desirable acts, or even acceptable in all circles! Further discussions on voluntary associations will clarify this – keep reading my posts!

For a better discussion on this topic, see Lysander Spooner’s essay Vices Are Not Crimes