The Logical Conclusion of Loving Freedom — and Others — Is Anarchism

The supposed “problems” with anarchism are problems already created and made a million times worse by the current, violent statist paradigm. 

Here’s a short conversation between A and B, about why freedom and self-ownership are all or nothing.

***

A: Hi, Bob. I see you like gun rights and the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

B: Damn straight I do.

A: May I ask why?

B: To defend against tyrannical governments, to protect my family, and to hunt. It is every man's right to do so.

A: I agree. But why is it every man's right? Because there are inalienable rights that come from God, or nature?

B: Yep, basically. Just having a title like "president" doesn't mean you get to violate my body or property.

A: I also agree with that. What about war?

B: What do you mean?

A: Well, sometimes one country's military will attack another country, and people that have nothing to do with the conflict end up dead.

B: Well, that is the nature of war. It's too bad. But there are countries that are a threat, and they must be defended against, just like I have to defend my own private home.

A: I understand that line of thinking, Bob, but what I am getting at is that the non-violent people in the country being attacked — as per your description of rights — have a right to defend their homes from invading American troops, wouldn't you say?

B: Well, now. That's a little different.

A: Why?

B: Well, countries function kind of like individual people, and we gotta take that into account. Sometimes the cause demands actions that cause lives to unfortunately be lost.

A: Who decides which lives may justifiably be taken?

B: Look at terrorism. If we didn't defend against these Muslim countries our country could be subject to attack. In that case, it's sad, but there's going to be collateral damage that results from our military justifiably defending its people.

A: So if the cause is deemed just by a large or important enough group of people, some people on the other side of the conflict, that are non-violent but caught in the middle, can be justifiably killed?

B: War is hell. Sometimes it's necessary in order to save more people, yes.

A: So rights then are not inalienable, or from God, for each individual —but are instead dependent on arbitrary, political factors?

B: Well, you're twisting my words a little. It's like the borders thing. The left wants to let all kinds of immigrants in to burden our taxpayers. That's not fair. In order to keep things basically peaceful for non-violent individuals here, there have to be strict controls.

A: So if a man comes from Mexico to work on his cousin's private property in the states, but doesn't have the right papers, he shouldn't be allowed in?

B: Now I didn't say that. There's room for improvement. But there are also lots of evil people that come in illegally.

A: For sure. Traffickers, drug cartels, rapists. There's some evil shit that happens at the border. But I'm asking, if you were there at the border — you personally — would you use violence to stop that guy trying to work on his cousin's farm from getting in?

B: Me? No. But I don't make the laws. And we need some kind of system to keep us safe until we can privatize things and get rid of the state. Or at least shrink it down much more.

A: So if that system is used against you, you won't complain?

B: What do you mean?

A: Well there's been plenty of travel prohibitions due to the whole "covid" thing. Especially in places like Canada. Let's say interstate travel here in America started to require passports and PCR tests and vaccination certificates. Would you be okay with that?

B: Hell no! And that's never going to happen.

A: Well, the border already enforces this limitation on foreigners arriving — even legally — into the U.S. Canada does it to Canadians, even.

B: As I said. Nothing's perfect.

A: Would it be more accurate to say that instead of believing all non-violent humans have inalienable rights from God — such as those rights to their bodies and property — you believe that under some circumstances, dictated not by nature or God but by humans, humans can lose these rights?

B: Look, I'm not a utopian like you. And I didn't say that.

A: That's fine. I'm just trying to understand the metric. Which humans get to decide when these God-given rights may be violently limited? What is the metric? It sounds totalitarian and arbitrary. If you personally say you don't have the right to stop the Mexican farmer guy or to kill a non-violent stranger overseas, how can you outsource those rights you don't even have, to a state?

B: Alright, enough of this. Keep dreaming little anarchist. Yes. I do care more about my safety and security and rights than those of strangers I don't even know! And why shouldn't I? We live in a real world, with real danger and real threats, that no flowery philosophy is gonna fix.

A: So then why do you talk about God-given rights?