| | Anarchy is a VERY old word and originally referred to a political situation in ancient Hellas when for a period of some years, the succession failed for the absolute ruler, the Archon. An + Archon = Anarchy = No ruler.
Some people preferred things that way at the time, and were referred to as Anarchists, whose who preferred no Archon, or no ruler, as it became generalized. The concept of ruler also became more generalized over time, and came to be substituted with the concept of the monopoly state, an agency with a monopoly on the use of force, or the initiation of force, although, if you asked an anarchist, they would certainly object to an "Archon" as much as to any modern state.
To try to characterize anarchists as holding a particular set of beliefs beyond a rejection of all rulers is highly inaccurate. It is equivalent to painting all statists with the same brush, making a republican equivalent morally and philosophically to a NAZI or a monarchist.
Many people - especially many statists - believe that without a ruler (and often only their own particular brand of ruler), society would collapse into chaos. Thus, they try to smuggle in their own conceptual beliefs by treating "anarchy" as equivalent to "disorder" or "chaos," as in "mere anarchy."
If my recollection serves me, there was an anarchist union organizer in the Fountainhead, who was depicted rather positively. And, Rand allowed the Rothbardian anarchists from City College of New York to attend her home parties, so they were at least on speaking terms. Interested readers can probably dig up my account of the meeting between Andrew Galambos and Rand, which I got directly from Galambos. Galambos had at one time referred to his concept of anarchy as "competing governments." So far as I know, he was the ONLY person to have promoted that term, and he did meet with Rand, and managed to gratuitously insult her (Galambos gratuitously insulted EVERYONE, actually), and shortly after came her "Competing Governments" article.
Since then, it has been verboten in Objectivist circles to imply that one has a sympathy for anarchy, although the antipathy, curiously enough, seems strongest at the bottom of the intellectual heirarchy. Yaron Brooke, for example, at one public presentation here in the OC, was asked about anarchy versus a limited state and said something to the effect that if we just keep aiming for zero state, or as little as is practical, then at some point perhaps we might discover how to go all the way, but that the question is rather academic considering how far we are from that point just now.
I would disagree on the grounds that the kind of strategy and permissable tactics might be very different for the two goals. If you think that a constitutional republic, an idealized form of what we already have or that the founding fathers wanted, with strictly limited powers, is the goal, then that dictates certain strategic paradigms, such as education in political theory, as with Paine's Common Sense, plus of course the reading of "Atlas Shrugged," ultimately leading to a change in elections and a political power grab. On the other hand, if you are an "anarcho-capitalist," then you are probably less interested in that kind of academic education and more inclined to look for market solutions that displace and replace state functions.
Note that these two very different strategies can potentially complement each other. Both of them are aimed at a reduction of what both camps agree is a very dangerous institution to its bare minimum, and getting the state out of most of the business that it is involved in - such as banking.
(Edited by Phil Osborn on 8/24, 8:44pm)
|
|
