Introduction

On this page I will attempt to resolve some of the fears, misconceptions, and outright lies that have been propagated about anarchism. This is in no way an attempt to speak for all anarchists. It has been said that there are as many definitions of anarchy as there are anarchists, and I want this page to reflect that. As you read this, be careful not to fall into the trap of classifying people with labels. Everyone has their own ideas and morals, and will behave differently. The purpose of this page is to promote a better understanding of anarchism.

Anarchist Principles

Government is an evil and unnecessary institution. The utilization of government as a control device for the population of an area is immoral and inefficient. Anarchy is the alternative to this artificially imposed order. Anarchists envision a libertarian and egalitarian society in which participation is voluntary and mutual aid replaces coercion as the binding force between individuals. Everyone must be allowed to judge for themselves what is right and wrong, and act according to reason and ethics instead of laws and pre-packaged morality. Whose ethics? Each person's conscience. My ethics are: If what you do infringes the rights of someone else, then it is wrong. Anything else is acceptable. Some anarchists believe that anarchy is not disorderly - that it is a much more complex form of organization than the simple hierarchical structure imposed on us by government. Still others view organization as just another tool used my the state to control us.

Anarchist Ideals

Liberty. Freedom. Freedom of conscience, or as Thomas Jefferson said it, the right to "the pursuit of happiness", is said to be the basis for all other freedoms; freedom is the highest ideal of anarchists. With liberty comes equality. Liberty does not truly exist unless it exists for everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, sexual preference, or ideology. All people are born equal, it is existing society that forces us into groups and classes. Government takes away rights. If it did any less it would not be government. Our government takes away our right to bear arms, our right to pursue happiness in whatever form we find it, our freedom of expression, and our freedom to choose what is best for ourselves. Government takes away our liberty. Government also denies us equality, another fundamental freedom, by separating us into classes and discouraging interaction between the classes. If you are born into a poor family, you will probably stay poor; if you are born into a rich family, you will probably be no worse off than your parents. The rich stay in control, and the workers continue to sell their lives to the system. Government also prevents free association by placing arbitrary political barriers between members of different countries as well as economic barriers between members of the same country. Militarism is a tragic example of the barriers between countries. If countries would spend as much effort trying to get along with each other as they spend trying to keep their own affairs in order, there would be much less war. There would also be less war if we settled disagreements between countries by putting the leaders of the countries in the ring and let them fight it out themselves. I'm sure all of us would agree that that method of war is absolutely absurd, but this is almost exactly what we are doing by fighting wars in the first place. Brute strength is no way to settle an argument. By what logic is the more powerful country correct? More often than not, the citizens of one country have no grudge against the citizens of the opposing country, but their governments turn them against each other with propaganda and lies. Soldiers don't stop to think that they are actually taking a human life. If every soldier in the world woke up one morning and decided that how many people one has killed is not really the best way to keep score, we'd all be a lot better off.

Anarchist Society

There are many differing points of view concerning how an anarchist society should be organized, including communist anarchy, collectivist anarchy, Proudhon's anarchy (which consisted of a federal system of autonomous villages), and even capitalist anarchy (an oxymoron in itself). In a communist anarchy, all property is owned by everyone. Theft is therefore eliminated because everyone owns everything; everyone shares common property. Some anarchists criticize all order and restraint, and that all interaction is good because good and evil are arbitrarily defined. Ontological anarchists believe that chaos is the solution - that the hidden order inherent in human interaction will emerge when artificial barriers are completely eliminated. I feel that the most probable and the most truly anarchic of all the systems is individualist anarchy. Individualist anarchists often criticize the tendency to place people into groups, such as blacks, whites, women, men, anarchist, feminists, homosexuals, etc., and expecting that all of the members of a defined group will think or behave in the same way. In fact, everyone is unique and no system will be right for everyone. In an individualist anarchy, people can form whatever kind of community suits them best. An anarchy in which every community was identical would be almost as coercive as majority rule.

A Model of an Anarchist Community?

There is no set model of an anarchist community. In an individualist anarchy, there could be many different systems. If you ask most anarchists, however, they will reply with words like "mutual aid" and "voluntary association". The idea is that people should work with each other instead of for each other, and that an anarchist society would be organized in a more complex way than modern society. Instead of some people being leaders and others followers, people cooperate. Attempts to model anarchist communities before-the-fact cannot be only theoretical, so I will instead answer some questions about an anarchist society which will help to define what an anarchist society could be. The following is taken and slightly modified from Objections to Anarchism, by George Barrett, which appears in The Raven (#12), an anarchist journal published by Freedom Press in London. Freedom Press can be reached at 84B Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX.

What will you do with the man who will not work?

In a free society the man who will not work, if he should exist at all, is at least brought on equal terms with the man who will. He is not placed in a position of privilege so that he need not work, but on the contrary the argument which is so often used against anarchism comes very neatly into play here in its favor. It is often urged that it is necessary to organize in order to live. Quite so, and for this reason the struggle for life compels us to organize, and there is no need for any further compulsion on the part of the government. Since to organize in society is really to work in society, it is the law of life which constantly tends to make men work, whilst it is the artificial laws of privilege which put men in such a position that they need not work. Anarchism would do away with these artificial laws, and thus it is the only system which constantly tends to eliminate the man who will not work.

We might perhaps here quote John Stuart Mill's answer to this objection:

The objection ordinarily made to a system of community of property and equal distribution of produce-'that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading his share of the work'-is, I think, in general, considerably overstated . . . Neither in a rude nor in a civilized society has the supposed difficulty been experienced. In no community has idleness ever been a cause of failure. [1]

It is necessary to organize in order to live, and to organize means Government; therefore anarchism is impossible.

It is true that it is necessary to organize in order to live, and since we all wish to live we shall all of our own free will organize, and do not need the compulsion of government to make us do so. organization does not mean government. All through our ordinary daily work we are organizing without government. If two of us lift a table from one side of the room to the other, we naturally take hold one at each end, and we need no government to tell us that we must not overbalance it by both rushing to the same end; the reason why we agree silently, and organize ourselves to the correct positions, is because we both have a common purpose: we both wish to see the table moved. In more complex organizations the same thing takes place. So long as organizations are held together only by a common purpose they will automatically do their work smoothly. But when, in spite of conflicting interests, you have people held together in a common organization, internal conflict results, and some outside force becomes necessary to preserve order; you have, in fact, governmental society. It is the anarchist's purpose to so organize society that the conflict of interests will cease, and men will cooperate and work together simply because they have interests in common. In such a society the organizations or institutions which they will form will be exactly in accordance with their needs; in fact, it will be a representative society.

How would you regulate the traffic?

We should not regulate it. It would be left to those whose business it was to concern themselves in the matter. It would pay those who use the roads (and therefore had, in the main, interests in common in the matter) to come together and discuss and make agreements as to the rules of the road. Such rules in fact which at present exist have been established by custom and not by law, though the law may sometimes take it on itself to enforce them.

This question we see very practically answered today by the great motor clubs, which are entered voluntarily, and which study the interest of this portion of the traffic. At dangerous or busy corners a sentry is stationed who with a wave of the hand signals if the coast is clear, or if it is necessary to go slowly. First-aid boxes and repair shops are established all along the road, and arrangements are made for conveying home motorists whose cars are broken down.

A very different section of road users, the carters, have found an equally practical answer to the question. There are, even today, all kinds of understandings and agreements amongst these men as to which goes first, and as to the position each shall take up in the yards and buildings where they work. Amongst the cabmen and taxi-drivers the same written and unwritten agreements exist, which are as rigidly maintained by free understandings as they would be by the penalties of law.

Suppose now the influence of government were withdrawn from our drivers. Does anyone believe that the result would be chaos? Is it not infinitely more likely that the free agreements at present existing would extend to cover the whole necessary field? And those few useful duties now undertaken by the government in the matter... would they not be much more effectively carried out by free organization among the drivers?

This question has been much more fully answered by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread. In this he shows how on the canals in Holland the traffic (so vital to the life of that nation) is controlled by free agreements, to the perfect satisfaction of all concerned. The railways of Europe, he points out, also, are brought into cooperation with one another and thus welded into one system, not by a centralized administration, but by agreements and counter-agreements between the various companies.

If free agreement is able to do so much even now, in a system of competition and government, how much more could it do when competition disappears, and when we trust to our own organization instead of to that of a paternal government?

If you abolish competition you abolish the incentive to work.

One of the strangest things about society today is that while we show a wonderful power to produce abundant wealth and luxury, we fail to bring forth the simplest necessities. Everyone, no matter what his political, religious, or social opinions may be, will agree in this. It is too obvious to be disputed. On the one hand there are children without boots; on the other hand are the boot-makers crying out that they cannot sell their stock. On the one hand there are people starving or living upon unwholesome food, and on the other hand provision merchants complain of bad trade. Here are homeless men and women sleeping on the pavements and wandering nightly through our great cities, and here again are property-owners complaining that no one will come and live in their houses. And in all these cases production is held up because there is no demand. Is this not an intolerable state of affairs? What now shall we say about the incentive to work? Is it not obvious that the present incentive is wrong and mischievous up to the point of starvation and ruination. That which induces us to produce silks, diamonds, jewelry, and toy pomeranians, while bread and boots and houses are needed, is wholly and absolutely wrong.

Today the scramble is to compete for the greatest profits. If there is more profit to be made in satisfying my lady's passing whim than there is in feeding hungry children, then competition brings us in feverish haste to supply the former, whilst cold charity or the poor law can supply the latter, or leave it unsupplied, just as it feels disposed. That is how it works out. This is the reason: the producer and the consumer are the two essentials; a constant flow of wealth passes from one to the other, but between them stands the profit-maker and his competition system, and he is able to divert that stream into what channel best pleases him. Sweep him away and the producer and the consumer are brought into direct relationship with one another. When he and his competitive system are gone there will still remain the only useful incentive to work, and that will be the needs of the people. The need for the common necessities and the highest luxuries of life will be not only fundamental as it is today, but the direct motive power behind all production and distribution. It is obvious, I think, that this is the ideal to be aimed at, for it is only in such circumstances that production and distribution will be carried on for its legitimate purpose... to satisfy the needs of the people; and for no other reason.

Under anarchism the country would be invaded by a foreign enemy.

At present the country is held by that which we consider to be an enemy- the landlord and capitalist class. If we are able to free ourselves from this, which is well established and at home on the land, surely we should be able to make shift against a foreign invading force of men, who are fighting, not for their own country, but for their weekly wage.

It must be remembered, too, that anarchism is an international movement, and if we do establish a revolution in this country, in other countries the people would have become at least sufficiently rebellious for their master class to consider it advisable to keep their armies at home.

If two people want the same piece of land under anarchism, how will you settle the dispute?

First of all, it is well to notice here that this and the next two questions all belong to the same class. This, at least, is based upon a fallacy. If there are two persons who want the exclusive right to the same thing, it is quite obvious that there is no satisfactory solution to the problem. It does not matter in the least what system of society you suggest, you cannot possibly satisfy that position. It is exactly as if I were suggesting a new system of mathematics, and someone asked me: 'Yes, but under this new system suppose you want to make ten go into one hundred eleven times?' The truth is that if you do a problem by arithmetic, or if you do it by algebra, or trigonometry, or by any other method, the same answer must be produced for the given problem; and just as you cannot make ten go into one hundred more than ten times, so you cannot make more than one person have the exclusive right to one thing. If two people want it, then at least one must remain in want, whatever may be the form of society in which they are living. Therefore, to begin with, we see that there cannot be a satisfactory way of settling this trouble, for the objection has been raised by simply supposing an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

All that we can say is that such disputes are very much better settled without the interference of authority. If the two were reasonable, they would probably mutually agree to allow their dispute to be settled by some mutual friend whose judgment they could trust. But if instead of taking this sane course they decide to set up a fixed authority, disaster will be the inevitable result. In the first place, this authority will have to be given power wherewith to enforce its judgment in such matters. What will then take place? The answer is quite simple. Feeling it is a superior force, it will naturally in each case take to itself the best of what is disputed, and allot the rest to its friends.

What a strange question is this. It supposes that two people who meet on terms of equality and disagree could not be reasonable or just. But, on the other hand, it supposes that a third party, starting with an unfair advantage, and backed up by violence, will be the incarnation of justice itself. Common sense should certainly warn us against such a supposition, and if we are lacking in this commodity, then we may learn the lesson by turning to the facts of life. There we see everywhere Authority standing by, and in the name of justice and fair play using its organized violence in order to take the lion's share of the world's wealth for the governmental class.

We can only say, then, in answer to such a question, that if people are going to be quarrelsome and constantly disagree, then, of course, no state of society will suit them, for they are unsocial animals. If they are only occasionally so, then each case must stand on its merits and be settled by those concerned.

Suppose one district wants to construct a railway to pass through a neighboring community, which opposes it. How would you settle this?

It is curious that this question is not only asked by those who support the present system, but it is also frequently asked by the Socialists. Yet surely it implies at once the aggressive spirit of Capitalism, for is it not the capitalist who talks of opening up the various countries of the world, and does he not do this in the very first instance by having a war in order that he may run his railways through, in spite of the local opposition by the natives? Now, if you have a country in which there are various communes, it stands to reason that the people in those communes will want facilities for travelling, and for receiving and sending their goods. That will not be much more true of one little community than of another. This, then, not only implies a local railway, but a continuous railway running from one end of the country to the other. If a certain district, then, is going to object to have such a valuable asset given to it, it will surely be that there is some reason for such an objection. That being so, would it not be folly to have an authority to force that community to submit to the railway passing through?

If this reason does not exist, we are simply supposing a society of unreasonable people and asking how they should cooperate together. The truth is that they could not co-operate together, and it is quite useless to look for any state of society which will suit such a people. The objection, therefore, need not be raised against anarchism, hut against society itself. What would a government society propose to do? Would it start a civil war over the matter? Would it build a prison large enough to enclose this community, and imprison all the people for resisting the law? In fact, what power has any authority to deal with the matter which the anarchists have not got?

The question is childish. It is simply based on the supposition that people are unreasonable, and if such suppositions are allowed to pass as arguments, then any proposed state of society may be easily argued out of existence. I must repeat that many of these questions are of this type, and a reader with a due sense of logic will be able to see how worthless they are, and will not need to read the particular answers I have given to them.

Suppose your free people want to build a bridge across a river, but they disagree as to position. How will you settle it?

To begin with, it is obvious, but important, to notice that it is not I, but they, who would settle it. The way it would work out, I imagine, is something like this:

We will call the two groups who differ A and B. Then-

1) A may be of opinion that the B scheme would be utterly useless to it, and that the only possible position for the bridge is where it has suggested. In which case it will say: 'Help our scheme, or don't cooperate at all.'

2) A may be of opinion that the B scheme is useless, but, recognizing the value of B's help, it may be willing to budge a few yards, and so effect a compromise with B.

3) A, finding it can get no help from B unless it gives way altogether, may do so, believing that the help thus obtained is worth more than the sacrifice of position.

These are, I think, the three courses open to A. The same three are open to B. I will leave it to the reader to combine the two, and I think he will find the result will be either:

1) That the bridge is built in the A position, with, we will say, the half-hearted support of B;

or

2) The same thing, but with letters A and B reversed;

or

3) The bridge is built somewhere between, with the partial support of both parties;

or

4) Each party pursues its own course, independent of the other.

In any case it will be seen, I hope, that the final structure will be representative, and that, on the other hand, if one party was able to force the other to pay for what it did not want, the result would not be representative or just.

The usefulness of this somewhat dreary argument will be seen if it be applied not merely to bridge-building but to all the activities of life. By so doing we are able to imagine growing into existence a state of society where groups of people work together so far as they agree, and work separately when they do not. The institutions they construct will be in accord with their wishes and needs. It will indeed be representative. How different is this from the politician's view of things, who always wants to force the people to cooperate in running his idea of society!

What would you do with the criminal?

There is an important question which should come before this, but which our opponents never seem to care to ask. First of all, we have to decide who are the criminals, or rather, even before this, we have to come to an understanding as to who is to decide who are the criminals? Today the rich man says to the poor man: 'If we were not here as your guardians you would be beset by robbers who would take away from you all your possessions.' But the rich man has all the wealth and luxury that the poor man has produced, and while he claims to have protected the people from robbery he has secured for himself the lion's share in the name of the law. Surely then it becomes a question for the poor man which he has occasion to dread most... the robber, who is very unlikely to take anything from him, or the law, which allows the rich man to take all the best of that which is manufactured.

To the majority of people the criminals in society are not to be very much dreaded even today, for they are for the most part people who are at war with those who own the land and have captured all the means of life. In a free society, where no such ownership existed, and where all that is necessary could be obtained by all that have any need, the criminal will always tend to die out. Today, under our present system, he is always tending to become more numerous.

It is necessary for every great town to have a drainage. Suppose someone refuses to connect up, what would you do with him?

This objection is another of the 'supposition' class, all of which have really been answered in dealing with the first question. It is based on the unsocial man, whereas all systems of society must be organized for social people. The truth, of course, is that in a free society the experts on sanitation would get together and organize our drainage system, and the people who lived in the district would be only too glad to find these convenient arrangements made for them. But still it is possible to suppose that somebody will not agree to this; what then will you do with him? What do our government friends suggest?

The only thing that they can do which in our anarchist society we would not do, is to put him in prison, for we can use all the arguments to persuade him that they can. How much would the town gain by doing this? But there is another way of looking at this question. Mr Charles Mayl, MB (Bachelor of Medicine) of New College, Oxford, after an outbreak of typhoid fever, was asked to examine the drainage of Windsor; he stated that:

In a previous visitation of typhoid fever the poorest and lowest parts of the town had entirely escaped, while the epidemic had been very fatal in good houses. The difference was that while the better houses were all connected with sewers the poor part of the town had not drains, but made use of cesspools in the gardens. And this is by no means an isolated instance.

We begin to see therefore that the man who objected to connecting his house with the drains would probably be a man who is interested in the subject, and who knows something about sanitation. It would be of the utmost importance that he should be listened to and his objections removed, instead of shutting him up in an unhealthy prison. The fact is, the rebel is here just as important as he is in other matters, and he can only profitably be eliminated by giving him satisfaction, not by trying to crush him out.

As the man of the drains has only been taken as an example by our objector, it would be interesting here to quote a similar case where the regulations for stamping out cattle diseases were objected to by someone who was importing cattle. In a letter to the Times, signed 'Landowner', dated 2nd August, 1872, the writer tells how he bought 'ten fine young steers, perfectly free from any symptom of disease, and passed sound by the inspector of foreign stock'. Soon after their arrival in England they were attacked by foot and mouth disease. On inquiry he found that foreign stock, however healthy, 'mostly all go down with it after the passage'. The government regulations for stamping out this disease were that the stock should be driven from the steamer into the pens for a limited number of hours. There seems therefore very little doubt that it was in this quarantine that the healthy animals contracted the disease and spread it among the English cattle. [3]

Every new drove of cattle is kept for hours in an infected pen. Unless the successive droves have been all healthy (which the very institution of the quarantine implies that they have not been) some of them have left in the pen disease matter from their mouths and feet. Even if disinfectants are used after each occupation, the risk is great... the disinfectant is almost certain to be inadequate. Nay, even if the pen is adequately disinfected every time, yet if there is not also a complete disinfection of the landing appliances, the landing-stage and the track to the pen, the disease will be communicated . . . The quarantine regulations . . . might properly be called regulations for the better diffusion of cattle diseases.

Would our objector to anarchism suggest that the man who refuses to put his cattle in these pens should be sent to prison?

We cannot all agree and think alike and be perfect, and therefore laws are necessary, or we shall have chaos.

It is because we cannot all agree that anarchism becomes necessary. If we all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the government which we are silly enough to call representative.

A very important point is touched upon here. It is because anarchists recognize the absolute necessity of allowing for this difference among men that they are anarchists. The truth is that all progress is accompanied by a process of differentiation, or of the increasing difference of parts. If we take the most primitive organism we can find it is simply a tiny globule of plasm, that is, of living substance. It is entirely undifferentiated... that is to say, all its parts are alike. An organism next above this in the evolutionary scale will be found to have developed a nucleus. And now the tiny living thing is composed of two distinctly different parts, the cell-body and its nucleus. If we went on comparing various organisms we should find that all those of a more complex nature were made up of clusters of these tiny organisms or cells. In the most primitive of these clusters there would be very little difference between one cell and another. As we get a little higher we find that certain cells in the clusters have taken upon themselves certain duties, and for this purpose have arranged themselves in special ways. By and by, when we get to the higher animals, we shall find that this process has advanced so far that some cells have grouped together to form the breathing apparatus, that is, the lungs; others are responsible for the circulation of the blood; others make up the nervous tissue; and so on, so that we say they form the various 'organs' of the body. The point we have to notice is that the higher we get in the animal or vegetable kingdom, the more difference we find between the tiny units or cells which compose the body or organism. Applying this argument to the social body or organism which we call society, it is clear that the more highly developed that organism becomes, the more different will be the units (ie the people) and organs (ie institutions and clubs) which compose it.

When, therefore, we want progress we must allow people to differ. This is the very essential difference between the anarchists and the governmentalists. The government is always endeavoring to make men uniform. So literally true is this that in most countries it actually forces them into the uniform of the soldier or the convict. Thus government shows itself as the great reactionary tendency. The anarchist, on the other hand, would break down this and would allow always for the development of new ideas, new growth, and new institutions; so that society would be responsive always to the influence of its really greatest men, and to the surrounding influences, whatever they may be.

It would be easier to get at this argument from a simpler standpoint. It is really quite clear that if we all agreed, or if we were forced to act as if we did agree, we could not have any progress. Change can take place only when someone disagrees with what is, and with the help of a small minority succeeding in putting that disagreement into practice. No government makes allowance for this fact, and consequently all progress which is made has to come in spite of governments, not by their agency.

I am tempted to touch upon yet another argument here, although I have already given this question too much space. Let me add just one example of the findings of modern science. Everyone knows that there is sex relationship and sex romance in plant life just as there is in the animal world, and it is the hasty conclusion with most of us that sex has been evolved for the purposes of reproduction of the species. A study of the subject, however, proves that plants were amply provided with the means of reproduction before the first signs of sex appeared. Science then has had to ask itself: what was the utility of sex evolution? The answer to this conundrum lies in the fact that 'the sexual method of reproduction multiplies variation as no other method of reproduction can.' [4]

If I have over-elaborated this answer it is because I have wished to interest (but by no means to satisfy) anyone who may see the importance of the subject. A useful work is waiting to be accomplished by some enthusiast who will study differentiation scientifically, and show the bearing of the facts on the organization of human society.

If you abolish government, you will do away with the marriage laws.

We shall.

How will you regulate sexual relationship and family affairs?

It is curious that sentimental people will declare that love is our greatest attribute, and that freedom is the highest possible condition. Yet if we propose that love shall go free they are shocked and horrified.

There is one really genuine difficulty, however, which people do meet in regard to this question. With a very limited understanding they look at things as they are today, and see all kinds of repulsive happenings: unwanted children, husbands longing to be free from their wives, and... there is no need to enumerate them. For all this, the sincere thinker is able to see the marriage law is no remedy; but, on the other hand, he sees also that the abolition of that law would also in itself be no remedy.

This is true, no doubt. We cannot expect a well-balanced humanity if we give freedom on one point and slavery on the remainder. The movement towards free love is only logical and useful if it takes its place as part of the general movement towards emancipation.

Love will only come to a normal and healthy condition when it is set in a world without slums and poverty, and without all the incentives to crime which exist today. When such a condition is reached it will be folly to bind men and women together, or keep them apart, by laws. Liberty and free agreement must be the basis of this most essential relationship as surely as it must be of all others.

You can't change human nature.

To begin with, let me point out that I am a part of human nature, and by all my own development I am contributing to and helping in the development and modification of human nature. If the argument is that I cannot change human nature and mold it into any form at will, then, of course, it is quite true. If, on the other hand, it is intended to suggest that human nature remains ever the same, then the argument is hopelessly unsound. Change seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence, and especially of organic nature. Man has developed from the lowest animals, and who can say that he has reached the limits of his possibilities?

However, as it so happens, social reformers and revolutionists do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.

A man becomes an outlaw and a criminal today because he steals to feed his family. In a free society there would be no such reason for theft, and consequently this same criminal born into such a world might become a respectable family man. A change for the worse? Possibly; but the point is that it is a change. The same character acts differently under the new circumstances.

To sum up, then:

1) Human nature does change and develop along certain lines, the direction of which we may influence;

2) The fundamental fact is that nature acts according to the condition in which it finds itself.

The latter part of the next answer will be found to apply equally here.

Who would do the dirty work under anarchism?

Today machinery is introduced to replace, as far as possible, the highly paid man. It can only do this very partially, but it is obvious that since machinery is to save the cost of production it will be applied to those things where the cost is considerable. In those branches where labor is very cheap there is not the same incentive to supersede it by machines.

Now things are so strangely organized at present that it is just the dirty and disagreeable work that men will do cheaply, and consequently there is no great rush to invent machines to take their place. In a free society, on the other hand, it is clear that the disagreeable work will be one of the first things that machinery will be called upon to eliminate. It is quite fair to argue, therefore, that the disagreeable work will, to a large extent, disappear in a state of anarchism.

This, however, leaves the question only partially answered. Some time ago, during a strike at Leeds (a city), the roadmen and scavengers refused to do their work. The respectable inhabitants of Leeds recognized the danger of this state of affairs, and organized themselves to do the dirty work. University students were sweeping the streets and carrying boxes of refuse. They answered the question better than I can. They have taught us that a free people would recognize the necessity of such work being done, and would one way or another organize to do it.

Bibliography:

1. J. S. Mill, Political Economy Vol. I, p.251. 3. The typhoid and the cattle disease cases are both quoted in the notes to Herbert Spencer's The Study of Sociology. 4. The Evolution of Sex in Plants by Professor J. Merle Coulter. It is interesting to add that he closes his book with these words: 'Its [sexuality's] significance lies in the fact that it makes organic evolution more rapid and far more varied. '

Technology and Anarchy

Some anarchists, such as "anarcho-primitivists", denounce technology as slavery. I firmly believe that technology - using tools to improve quality of life - is a basic characteristic of all human beings. While we must not completely rely on technology and government-funded research for survival, technology and its advancement are important parts of any society. Government is not responsible for scientific advancement. Almost all of the great historical scientific discoveries were made without the "benefit" of government grants. Government funding only allows scientists to be exploited and made to do science to suit the state's purposes. Science should be done for the good of humanity, not the good of the government - you can always depend on government to find a way to make a weapon out of any new technology. When resources are readily accessible to everyone, technology will be free to advance as rapidly or more rapidly than it does now.

The Case for Anarchism

To prove a need for change, one must prove that a problem exists with the status quo, that the problem is inherent in the status quo, that the harm is sufficient to cause concern, and that the proposed change will solve the problem and eliminate the harm. In the following paragraphs I will show that a change to anarchy is preferable to the status quo: coercion.

The Problem Exists

There are many problems with government as a foundation of society. Aside from coercion being unethical, there are many practical reasons why anarchy will work better.

#1: Power corrupts. Anyone put in a position of power is highly likely to use that power to use that power to their own ends, and will not be able to fairly represent the interests of everyone that he or she is supposed to "represent".

#2: The majority does not necessarily know better than the minority. Truth does not change simply because 51% of the people think differently. The majority, who simply think along with the most popular opinion of the day, cannot possibly be placed in charge and expected to look after the rights of the minority. The only way everyone's rights can be protected is if every person is his or her own government, and be restrained only by conscience and reason. We are perfectly capable of making our own conscious choices, and have our decisions made for us by someone else. In this age we have been conditioned to blindly accept coercion as the only way of life.

#3: The class system restrains the rights of individuals by forcing them into positions in society that they may not be best suited for. Someone who is born into the working class will, in all likelihood, do no better than their parents. People born into the upper class can afford to do no work at all while depending upon the exploitation of the working class to support them.

#4. Government is a wasteful bureaucracy. Government and the ruling class waste the products of the working class's labor, through taxes, enforcement of unnecessary laws, and the rich living in luxury while the poor suffer. The American government pays social security to old rich people, while young poor children are dying on the streets of easily treatable illnesses.

#5. Government creates crime. The government prohibits, and prohibition creates crime. The status quo creates poverty and poverty creates crime. The government artificially increases the prices of drugs by criminalizing them. As Emma Goldman said, "The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the state itself is the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the terrible scourge of its own creation." The government only protects those in control, and cares little about the lower classes. Do you feel that you are protected when you walk through the streets in the "bad" part of town? The government places little value in the poor and inner-city youth.

There is harm in the status quo, and certainly they are enough to cause concern. Society is degrading every day because of classism, racism, ageism, sexism, and innumerable other -isms. Every day, the government seizes more power, supposedly for our own protection. We don't need to be protected from ourselves and we don't need to be protected from each other.

The Problem is Inherent

These problems are inherent in any system based on coercion or competition. They cannot be solved within the present system, partly because of people's attitudes and partly because of the structure of authoritarian government itself.

#1. Power is always corruptive, no matter if the power is in the hands of a dictator, a congress, or a majority.

#2. While we agree that the majority does not have any more right to rule than the minority, a system of minority rule would still by tyranny. No individual or group should be given the right to control any other.

#3. All governments require the expenditure of wealth to operate: to feed their armies, to build killing machines, and to hire police to control their citizens and extort money from them. In an anarchist society, the workers get to reap all the benefits of their labor, without their government taking it away from them.

#4. Crime is created by government because all authority causes us to substitute laws for ethics and act only according to what is legal rather than what is acceptable by our conscience.

Civil Disobedience

Many laws are around today because no one will stand up and break them and say, "this law is unjust!" Practice civil disobedience in your daily life; don't let the government's arbitrarily defined guidelines confine you.

Conclusion

Anarchy is the only solution to all of the problems we face as a people today.