I just want to make the disclaimer right away for this topic that I am not an anarchist myself and in no way am I advocating for anarchism… though I don’t completely dislike the idea. I have just been thinking that anarchism in it of itself is too uncompromising. It seeks to abolish all self government in the name of freedom and than wishes to take away public opinion and abolish representation and promises to give everyone freedom after that. I don’t like that.
I think that we have to accept that governments will always be around in large societies- well, at least, for the time being (not for hundreds of years). We may certainly plan in case the United States government gets toppled- which I don’t believe that it will in a long time, for what to do after that. I don’t believe in usurping the government. That is not my goal. I do not proclaim to share revolutionary views as many other anarchists do. I believe in a revolution by ideas and liberty- not by force. A violent revolution would lead to the same end game as the state and would take away what moral justification we had in a revolution of some kind.
As for me, my personal beliefs are somewhere inbetween anarchism and minarchism. I would barely consider myself a minarchist. The only way in which that I consider myself a minarchist is that I believe that nations ought to have a system of laws to prevent individuals from harming other human beings. These laws ought to protect our liberty. The only time when our actions stop being the sphere of liberty and into the realm of law is when our actions duly cause harm to others. We ought not to sacrifice liberty for security by abolishing human freedom and all the things we don’t like in the name of moral regulations, religion, or whatever. I really don’t believe in having a militaristic state. I have always leaned for the most part towards pacifism- but I do believe in the NAP, and, the right to defend ones self from aggression.
That said, constitutional anarchism would be applying the theoretical boundaries of anarchism and libertarianism to the practical world. I call the philosophy anarchism because it would not really advocate the use of big government. It is constitutional in the sense that it preserves the rights for others to have political representation. People in the constitutional anarchist form of government would have a representative council that would meet and discuss matters of foreign policy, and, the economy only in which matters affect the public at large, and, they would propose recommendations to the various sectors of business- but not by force, but by persuasion for them to follow. How is this anarchism? It’s not really anarchism.
But- the anarchist part of it is that the philosophy never really allows for expansion of government on our individual affairs- but it would prevent the government from intervening in the affairs of others, in which it has no jurisdiction or national interest to. The government would have to show that there is a national interest- safety, or, if there’s a depression- in order to pass things like unemployment benefits, or, what not. As for economic bailouts- the government would have to earn its own money- not through taxation- but through trade, and its own business entrepeneurship in order to bail out companies if it wanted to. That way they wouldn’t pass the cost onto the consumers.
I’ve been reading John Stewart Mill a bit and I have been liking his idea about letting society regulate the conduct of the affairs of the individual. We do not necessarily need to criminalize drugs. What we need to do is to enact punishments for those who are in a state of delerium in the public- that might cause harm to others. Society can offer punishments to these individuals and the state does not need to take part in them. If these individuals cause harm to others it is up to the private courts, or, to the state courts to act in policing them. The act of policing others for their harm caused to others is justified. We can’t however just ban all activities we simply do not like.
We would take the bill of rights that we have in the United States as the rights that everyone has in the country. The bill of rights is fine. There just would be more emphasis on the first amendment- in the first amendment we wouldn’t not only have freedom of the press- but also freedom of thought and freedom of action. I believe in such a society as ours we cannot consider ourselves free when we have loitering laws preventing people from hanging out in public places. Then as to the subject of the fourth amendment- there needs to be more emphasis about what is an unreasonable search or seizure, and, more of a stricter definition as to what that means, and, the 5th and 6th amendment cannot just be privileges- they are guarantees. The bill of rights would be fine.
The constitution would allow any kind of ideologies to take power in such a government. What it would do- would be to prevent the government from encroaching on the rights of individuals, and, from discouraging dissent, and, would force the government to show they really have a substantial concern in order to regulate a part of the economy. If we kept the government from regulating the economy in areas that which it does not need to- like with anti-trust laws, or, with granting corporations the rights that they have, or, forcing businesses to maximize profits at the expense of their community (see Dodge VS Ford Motors)… then we should be able to be a society of liberty. I do think the problem with the government regulating the economy is not necessarily that they regulate it- it’s how they regulate it. They have a right to know what goes on in foreign trade- that’s a national interest. But, like, if it’s something like just an internet company getting too big like Comcast- I don’t believe the government has a right to regulate in the affairs of business, much like they don’t have the right to interfere with the affairs of the individual.
They can do their own public works campaigns if they want- but they would have to do it with their own money. I believe that a large reason why we don’t like the government doing public works is that they do it with other people’s money, and, they print our money, at a cost for it. They should do it only with money they earn, and, not with money they don’t have. I don’t believe in public works- but, I personally think that we would be acting like despots if we banned public works altogether, and, if we lived under an anarchist society we would be doing the same thing with public works- just without the government.
That’s my idea for a completely voluntary state, and, one that enjoins all the principles of liberty that we hold so highly I believe this is a practical way for anarchism to go for. I don’t necessarily believe in government, but, I think that shutting all of it down may not be possible in our present stage, and, if we were to go the road of revolutionary anarchists and abolish political representation- we would end up like the Soviet Union.
Those are my houghts. What do you think?