Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Anarchist Illusions

Expand Messages
  • Smacko
    http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/AnarchistIllusions.asp ROY RECANTS Anarchist Illusions by Roy A. Childs, Jr. (Originally published in Liberty Against
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/AnarchistIllusions.asp


      ROY RECANTS
      Anarchist Illusions
      by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
      (Originally published in Liberty Against Power: Essays by Roy. Childs,
      Jr.
      edited by Joan Kennedy Taylor; 1994)
      (First published on TDO November 13, 1999)
      Editor's Note by Joan Kennedy Taylor: During the early 1980s, Roy Childs
      mentioned to some of his friends that he had changed his mind about
      anarchism, and intended someday to write about the subject at length;
      exactly when and why this change occurred is unclear. He said to me once
      that the hostage crisis in Iran was a turning point for him, because it
      became obvious that when the Iranian students took the hostages, because
      of the de facto anarchy in that country there was no one with whom to
      negotiate for their release; but he didn't argue the point further. Many
      limited government libertarians, including myself, feel that their
      arguments were decisive in changing his mind, but we will never know.
      When Laissez Faire Books announced in 1988 that Childs would edit The
      Libertarian newsletter for them, he decided to put his new views on
      anarchism in the first issue, but neither the article nor the first
      issue was ever completed-this fragment (which was found in his papers
      after his death) is as far as he got. What his argument would have been,
      we will unfortunately never know, but because his views in defense of
      anarchism have been so influential, it seems only fair to include this
      tantalizing beginning here.
      Many years ago I wrote a little essay published as "Objectivism and the
      State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand," which caused quite a stir. At the
      time, I was a young libertarian who had become converted to the position
      I called "free market anarchism," and it was my intention to convert
      Rand to that position; I knew that, through her, her followers would be
      reached as well.
      Rand disagrees
      Things did not exactly work out as planned. In place of the astonished
      but eager acceptance of my argument-and there was some minor hope on my
      part for that result-I received notice in my mailbox of the cancellation
      of my subscription to Ayn Rand's magazine,
      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1561141488/thedailyobjectiv> The
      Objectivist. I took my original letter to Ayn Rand and circulated it to
      a handful of friends and acquaintances, and after making a few minor
      line changes, published it in a magazine of small circulation.
      The reaction astonished me because I received nearly as many letters in
      response to my argument as the magazine had subscribers. Two letters
      were favorable, while about two hundred were not. Over the course of the
      next few years, the position of free market anarchism found more and
      more acceptance in the libertarian movement, and its enthusiasts easily
      gave the advocates of limited government a run for their money. I was
      not the first to advocate free market anarchism, but for a while, at
      least, I found myself one of its most vocal advocates, writing letters,
      engaging in public debates, publishing articles ("Anarchism and
      Justice," a multi-part series, appeared in the The Individualist; "The
      Epistemological Basis for Anarchism," a privately-published essay, was
      circulated in the thousands; there were others), making speeches, and
      always returning to print to refute new attempts to provide a
      justification for limited government.
      My last essay on the subject was published as a critique of Robert
      Nozick's
      <http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=pl0196&aid=DO>
      Anarchy, State and Utopia, published more than ten years ago as "The
      Invisible Hand Strikes Back," in the Journal of Libertarian Studies.
      I have said that I was not the originator of free market anarchism, and
      that is indeed true. Murray Rothbard thinks that the original
      "anarcho-capitalist" was probably Gustav de Molinari, the nineteenth
      century Belgian economist and follower of the great French libertarian,
      Frederic Bastiat. At the time I began writing about anarchism, I knew
      nothing about Molinari. My own mentors were Robert LeFevre, whose
      doctrine of "autarchy" or "self-rule" caught my fancy as a teenager;
      and, later, the thinking done by such figures as Morris and Linda
      Tannehill, authors of the recently-reprinted work
      <http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=li7615&aid=DO> The
      Market for Liberty, and Murray Rothbard, particularly through my
      acquaintance with one of his associates, the late Wilson Clark.
      Change of heart
      Nevertheless, I was a tireless propagandist for anarchism, and probably
      convinced as many people of the legitimacy of the position as anyone
      else at that time. This was, no doubt, due to the fact that my argument
      was cast in the form of critiques of the most influential libertarian
      theorist of the time, Ayn Rand. Her followers were far more numerous
      than those of any other figure. Her influence was so vast that it easily
      dwarfed that of anyone else, with the possible exception of Ludwig von
      Mises, who pretty much stuck to economics and broader issues in the
      social sciences.
      Since writing my critique of Nozick, which had a very favorable
      reception, I have been asked to expand on some of my views in this area.
      How would anarchism work? What were my current views on the subject? I
      regularly ducked the first issue, and anyone familiar with my writings
      on the subject may notice that I have never written anything about how
      free market anarchism would work; my published views have been limited
      to knocking down justifications for government. I ducked the second
      issue as long as I could, for a very good reason: I had changed my mind,
      and was not ready to argue my new case.
      But I knew that sooner or later I would return to the subject of
      anarchism. That is the purpose of this essay: to refute myself as well
      as other anarchists. Why? Because, to paraphrase my open letter to Ayn
      Rand, I was wrong. I now regard anarchism as incoherent and even
      dangerous to the libertarian movement.
      It will be said that the only issue is the truth or falsity of an idea,
      and that calling an idea "dangerous" is itself somewhat a "dangerous"
      mode of thought. But it is my conviction that anarchism functions in the
      libertarian movement precisely as does Marxism in the international
      socialist movement: as an incoherent and therefore unreachable goal that
      inevitably corrupts any attempted strategy to achieve it. I will argue
      that, as in the case of advocates of a Marxist utopia, libertarians
      attempting to implement anarchism would find themselves invariably
      moving in practice toward something very different; something,
      furthermore, that they never intended.
      Fantasy masquerading as ideology
      My purpose, then, is twofold: to refute anarchism as a doctrine, to
      expose it as a fantasy masquerading as an ideology, and to show how in
      fact it has led too many libertarians away from reality, and, indeed,
      set them on a collision course with it.
      Too often in social or political thinking the unreflective acceptance of
      an incoherent ideal has led to trouble. We need only look at the often
      pernicious effects of such ideals as "equality" or "planning" to see how
      something apparently innocent can lead otherwise well-meaning people
      into the acceptance of the most absurd proposals and realities
      imaginable. And sometimes, of course, the proposals and realities have
      not been merely absurd, but criminal. What crimes have not been
      committed in the name of equality? And what amount of arbitrary state
      power has not been sanctioned in the name of state planning of the
      economy?
      But, it will be answered, we have never seen a full-fledged attempt to
      achieve anarcho-capitalism in the modern world. How can the things be
      compared? We simply lack the experience that we do in the case of ideals
      like equality and planning.
      True enough, but an incoherent goal pursued with enough diligence and
      success must always produce unexpected and even shocking outcomes.
      Equality and planning were incoherent goals. So too, I will argue, is
      anarcho-capitalism. It has become a standard libertarian argument that
      the malicious implications of equality and planning are indeed implicit
      in any sustained, rational analysis of the actual meanings of the
      concepts involved. If we look at what is involved in the ideal of
      equality, we must be able to discern that it is either perniciously
      arbitrary (why only equality of wealth? what would "equality of
      opportunity" or "equality of outcomes" actually entail?) or that it can
      only be achieved by the most extreme and unacceptable means. And if we
      examine the notion of "comprehensive planning of the economy," we find
      similar questions and implications. We would find that it would be
      necessary to accept not only a vast concentration of power in the hands
      of the state, but also a destruction of wealth on such a large scale as
      to render whole populations destitute.
      Some people might not shrink from accepting such consequences, but they
      would probably be in the minority, which is where psychopaths properly
      belong.
      -DO-
      Roy A. Childs, Jr. was the editor of Libertarian Review from 1977
      through 1981. For the next few years he was a policy analyst with the
      Cato Institute, before moving to New York City to assume editorial
      duties for Laissez Faire Books. Roy was Laissez Faire's editorial
      director from 1984 until his death in 1992. He was 43.
      <http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=li6183&aid=DO>
      Roy A. Childs, Jr. on big business and the rise of American
      statism...the Iranian drama...crime in the cities: the drug
      connection...Kay Nolte Smith...regulating the poor...Giovanni Sgambati,
      Piano Concerto in G Minor, Op.15...The Discovery of Freedom...Ayn Rand
      and the libertarian movement...and much, much more.



      http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/AnarchistIllusions.asp



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.