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?