Basics of Anarchism and the ethical hypocrisy of the state

Anarchism in the classical sense is a society void or archons. Archons where traditionally the chief of the magistrates of Greek cities but it also in a wider sense meant leader of the table or ruler. There are many non mutually exclusive forms of anarchism. The Different contemporary forms of anarchism are each based around the conflicts and interactions of the individuals freedoms with society. For the purposes of this discussion and my further discussions anarchy is a philosophy stating society should not be organised by a coercive state. A coercive state being a area under the rule of a group of people who make legislature and use force or threat of force to impose this legislature on the population of the given area despite the will of the individual.

There is a common misconception about anarchism that needs to be corrected before discussion can begin. People often believe anarchism is synonyms with a society being in a state of anomie. Anomie is the lack of the usual social and moral standards and when applied to society would be a state of chaos and lawlessness lacking what we would call social norms. Anarchy can potentially exhibit some on the properties of a society in anomie but is not in and of it self a society necessarily lacking social norms and values. A organised anarchy in theory could be less chaotic then modern democracies. When people envision anarchy with fire and heinous violence this is a more accurate portal of a society in anomie then a anarchy.

The validity of anarchism as a philosophy is based on the assertion that the state has no moral justification for being exempt from the rules of the rest of society. You might say a anarchist doesn't believe in the government and the people. They believe there are just people and some people that coerce others. To illustrate why the state is morally bankrupt I will use a analogy. If you live in a neighbourhood autonomous of any external social systems and you magically get money and you can exchange this money with god for goods and services. Then Steve one day comes to your house and says "give me half your money I am deciding that I am taking half of every ones money and I will pay god to make a community hall and lots of other things" you reply "I don't want one! I am happy the way things are" Steve reply's "I have the support of most of the community and therefore I have the power to take your money and I will take your money if you don't give it to me". You give in and give Steve half your money even though you do not want any thing he and most of the other people do.

That is the end of the analogy. Steve is a archon with the use of power he gained through the support of the majority of society he coerced you and effectively stole half your money. I am drawing a analogy that your neighbourhood is the state Steve is a archon and the community largely gave him support he was hence unofficially elected by the population. This is a very basic model for most democratic governments today. Was Steve righteous in stealing your money even though the majority said he was allowed to? Does he have the right to imprison you if you refuse? Does he have the right to kill you if you attempt to forcefully resist his imprisonment? These are all powers the state has. It is assumed because the majority supports the state then the majority supports the means of the state hence because the majority accepts the means it is ethical conduct . Does the majority decide what ethical conduct is or does it exist objectively? Is the government forcefully taking money from some one ok because every one says it is?

You have been conditioned by society to assume that the state having power over its citizens is ethical because the majority has elected the government. But stop treating this as a axiom and consider the analogy. The state is just a collection of people empowered by the consent of the majority to force individuals to adhere to its chosen rules. Does might make right? The state would never allow you or a collection of individuals to steal off a community because the majority in the given area has given you permission to do so. The state would enforce its own laws and imprison you for doing so. This is moral hypocrisy as it does the same thing with in its own borders.

It is tempting to ignore the moral issues and make arguments of distraction like but how could we function with out the government. Because it maybe hard to acknowledge your living in and contributing to a society that's morally floored. Or because it is a alien concept. But it is important to acknowledge then the state is morally hypocritical.