More questions than answers?

Anarchy? Libertarianism? Are they the same? Or two sides of the same coin.

I've been bothered by both philosophies for a very long time. Both seem to operate on the assumption that people could live and be happier in a society where there is nobody that can tell them what they can and cannot do.

Recently, I asked a friend (Hi friend of BunnyCat) for help in trying to understand how people could be so committed to either set of ideas. Granted, they can make for a stimulating conversation, and can certainly be interesting to think about, but I have a real problem with anyone who seriously believes this type of philosophy could truly be the basis for a functioning society. She was kind enough to point me at a couple of YouTube videos of Noam Chomsky expounding on what he believed Anarchy was about. Unfortunately, I seem to be stuck right off the bat after seeing Brother Chomsky’s “clarification” of what it means to be an Anarchist. I can’t seem to be able to get past the part where he states that in a truly Anarchist society, anyone who assumes a leadership role must be able to prove that they have the authority to do so. He cites the example of stopping his granddaughter from running into the street, and said that he would obviously have the authority in this situation as he was the grandfather of the young child. 

My first criticism of that would be it’s not going to be "obvious" to any stranger observing the act. Plus the act itself might possibly be subject to misinterpretation. 

Be that as it may, Chomsky goes on to posit several more examples wherein any authority figure or person assuming some manner of authority must be able to demonstrate his right and/or ability to do so. How is this in any substantial way different from the current systems of population and market controls around the world? Chomsky does lean rather hard on women for examples of people who should be more questioning of masculine assumptions of authority. This is certainly true in some cases, but what of the rest of society? Let’s not forget that there are examples of matriarchal societies and countries with females in positions of leadership all over the world. 

In the USA, we make a great show of the supposed democratic elections of our leaders. By definition, those representatives are given their authority by the supposed majority of the voters. The fact that some of us disagree with the results of any election in no way invalidates the authority given to the winner.

Even in a totalitarian state like China, the leadership is granted authority to lead by the acquiescence of the majority of the people. As that same country has proven over the millennia, when the leader loses the “Mandate of Heaven” he is quickly removed from power, either by popular uprising or by invasion of a stronger ruler. Even truer today as we see Xi Jinping seize power from his predecessor Hu Jintao in an onging coup, all the while knowing that he's a Cultural Revolution away from ending up in front of a firing squad as many of his compatriots have done.

I guess the bottom line for me anyway, is that these kind of political exercises are intriguing to ponder, and likely could be workable in a small population of like-minded people, but quickly fall apart as soon as one person, or a group of people who don’t want to play by the rules enters the equation. 

Like Libertarianism, Anarchy requires everyone in the group to agree on its basic premises, whatever they might be. In a large group, even a moderate-sized village, let alone a large modern city, the whole concept would seem to fall apart relatively fast. The whole idea of businesses “Self-regulating” because they would be forced to be so by their customers has been proven over and over to be wishful thinking. Businesses have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing. When they are poorly regulated, they pollute the environment, produce shabby and unsafe products, lie to their customers and shareholders, and more. For every ten businesses that are sincerely trying their best to be good citizens, it seems we will discover at least one who is acting the part of a weasel in the henhouse, using other’s responsibility as cover for their misdeeds. Plus in today’s corporate accounting, it is a matter of faith that in order to maximize profits, they will actively seek ways to at least take advantage of tax loopholes if not deliberately misrepresent their profits and expenditures to illegally avoid paying their fair share. Not even talking about tax dodges like the Bahamas and lots of others that will allow foreign actors to hide their money from the IRS.

And yet for all this, we hear politicians and others bloviating about the “Invisible Hand of the Market” and the need to remove those “Job-Killing Regulations” that are holding back the economy.

But as usual, I seem to have digressed.

When I see the self-proclaimed “Anarchists” dressed in black and rioting on the streets of Seattle, what should I be reading into their protests?

Dictionary.com describes Anarchist as:

1] A person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2] A person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

3] A person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

Also, I found a piece by a Paul McLaughlin titled “Anarchism and Authority” which I confess that I did not read, only skimmed, but I was able to summarize in part that it depends on the belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society. (Pp 25-26) 

It looks as if Anarchism goes quite a way further than Chomsky’s rather unsatisfying examples. He seems to be of the opinion that authority is okay, as long as it’s “legitimate” somehow. But the definitions of classical anarchy seem to put forward as a basic principle that all authority is illegitimate, therefore anything purporting to exercise control over a population is forbidden!

Libertarians are just as confusing. It began as a far-left Socialist organization, and truly they have more in common with them. Libertarians are opposed to war, they believe in universal healthcare & education, but have aligned themselves more with far-right groups in recent decades. Isn't that odd? But they do still adhere to the belief that peple and businesses can be trusted to behave and be responsible citizens.

Again, I’m struck by the supposition that humans are basically all good and will not need any sort of coercion to do what is right.

Am I missing something?