Factionalism Pt 2

As with any government or social organization, Anarchy and Factionalism require maintenance to perpetuate itself. In other words the virtues of the organization must be continually refreshed and made apparent to the public, and needs the use of force to survive occasionally. For the anarchist this presents somewhat of a paradox since we aspire for a society in which no group has a monopoly on the use of force - and as I have previously stated all governments as we know it must use it or they would cease to exist.

However I think I have it sorted out, in an anarchic society self-defense would not be considered a illegitimate use of force. There would be a marked difference between the way force is used in the present nation-state world and the anarchic, factional one. For one thing, the state uses force aggressively - meaning it goes out and attacks 'perceived threats' rather than actual ones. It is constantly bound to enforce it's own 'laws' which of course it does not follow itself. Based all upon one, rather whiny rational "If we let them get away with it then everybody will."

Consider the many cases of Waco, Ruby Ridge and tax protestors. In all cases the perceived threat to the state is attacked using lethal force. The fact that they were violators of some petty "laws" was all it took. Never mind the fact they weren't bothering anyone else, eating babies or some other obvious moral problem. So clearly, the state has a history of using force aggressively on it's subjects.

Anarchy on the other hand uses force defensively, in other words for the most part if you leave me alone I'll leave you alone. And I say 'for the most part' because in some cases intervention is necessary, but still would be considered defensive. Let's say Faction A attacks Faction B to take over it's assets and positions. Well Faction C and D aren't being bothered so they stay out of it. Soon Faction A uses the combined resources from Faction B to take over C and D, and then the world. It's kind of along the old argument against Anarchism that well "Some group will just take over and establish government again." Well this wouldn't be the case if most or all Factions at least shared one ideology - despite their other wide-ranging differences. Or perhaps "One Law" This would not be just any Law, as Anarchists tend to disdain Laws and embrace morals instead. The title is a matter of semantics because the true nature of the "One Law" is to summarize and condense all basic morals into one concise statement.

The founders of America tried to do this in their constitution and Bill of Rights, but having the shortsightedness most intellectuals have (myself excluded) they did not see the importance of keeping things simple for the common man. This is represented by the length of the documents and by the simple fact that most people do not know the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. So by this reason the establishment of the founders is not easily maintained by it's own virtues. I will give it some credit for lasting over 200 years, but in the present day it's virtues are diminishing.

I do not believe even 'limited and small government' to which most Anarchists could tolerate living in is even a good thing. I believe even that small government will eventually grow in power to be a tyrannical one. Indeed, as can be seen throughout history, revolutions are fought to establish a different government only to happen again for the similar reasons. I wonder why people haven't thought to end this vicious cycle permanently. This could be done by keeping the problem nipped in the bud as I will explain how a combination of the "One Law" and a loose alliance of Factions could prevent one from taking over.

The One Law:
ARTICLE 1: Everyone must obey the One Law.
ARTICLE 2: No one shall require anyone to do anything, from under threat of physical force.
ARTICLE 3: Physical force should only be used to stop the violation of the second article.
ARTICLE 4: No other law except this one may be enforced, using physical force.


In this one concise Law, all Anarchic principles are maintained as well as "the golden rule" found in the Bible stated by Jesus. Most people should be able to remember the four articles of the Law. Even if they just remember the first two articles, Anarchic society would remain mostly intact. I will break this Law down to explain it's implications.

Firstly, this Law covers all the basic crimes, murder, stealing, etc. Think about it. Killing someone is forcing them to die. Stealing is forcing them to relinquish some property. Any number of other crimes can be linked to the use of force. The most important thing about the Law is it's absolute language and shortness. It does not leave much room at all for tampering and misinterpretation that Lawyers and the state love to maneuver around their own rules. Above all else, there is specifically no exemption, as it is specifically stated that no one is "above the Law" which is another thing the state claims to be.

If a lasting Anarchy is to exist, it must have some solid, moral foundations. I will not be so arrogant as to say it must be my morals or the Law I have laid out here. But It must have some common moral agreement with the masses. There is more than one way to do this I am sure, I am just presenting my own solution.

One thing my One Law does not cover is property rights because the definition of 'property rights' can vary. Anarcho-communists have a different take on private property than Anarcho-capitalists. This is a debate that can frustrate even the most brilliant of debaters, and something the Factions will have to work out by themselves. However, the One Law must prevail in any property dispute and I would say that whomever uses force to take property is a violator. While in the same token, whomever uses force to maintain property is a violator as well. So basically whomever uses force first waives their right to the property. Getting into how this can be determined is a whole essay in itself. But I can say this simply: If one has a house and someone breaks the door open to get in, then that person has used force to get in and is a violator. However if said person leaves the door wide open and someone walks in and said owner shoots them then the owner of the property is a violator.

In other words property rights must require some vigilance on the part of the owner to legitimately maintain. It is the owner's responsibility to create the situation that the would-be property violator must resort to the use of force to encroach upon the property rights of another.

Loose alliances: "Empire of Anarchy"

I mentioned something about loose alliances and Faction A taking over Faction B. Well if you play that scenario with the One Law in place, it's pretty reasonable that Factions would have alliances to maintain that Law or everyone's way of life could end. Consider the fact that Faction A taking over Faction B is a violation of the One Law. Thus it would be the duty of the other Factions to intervene as allowed in the second article of the One Law: "Physical force should only be used to stop the violation of the second article." All other factions declare war on Faction A, take out the leaders and allow the citizens to convert. In a way this alliance unifies the Factions from external threats and in an almost oxymoron way would create an "Empire of Anarchy".


On a side note, I suspect that if Anarchy should ever take root, it probably would have a zero-tolorance policy for any would-be state. If such a state left everyone alone and kept it's border's fixed then it may just be shunned and not allowed to expand - such as the U.S.'s policy of 'containment' on Communism. But trying to expand would rightly so incur the wrath of all those around it. I would also think that such a conflict from the Anarchist's side should avoid collateral damage as much as possible. After all we are trying to win the people's hearts and minds, and besides it's not their fault they are forced to live under the state. Unfortunately it is the nature of the state to use delusional people high on 'patriotism' and 'nationalism' to shield those responsible to fight as soldiers, if they get in the way of the purging of the state then that is unfortunate. But the 'civilian' populace should be left alone and treated with respect. This would be more than nation-states do with each other; indeed, civilians in their mind are legitimate targets.

More to come in Factionalism Pt 3, I will get into the nitty gritty of how things could work to satisfy all those petty arguments of "Well what if my neighbor does this... or some crazy does that... or what if person in faction A violates property rights of Faction B." I needed to workout a over-arching foundation before focusing on the small fries. I am more about the 'big picture' the tiny, petty details most people want to dwell on doesn't concern me much, but I will take a crack at it next time.

Back from a break

One of the nice things about blogging is you can put it on pause at any time. While some ideas on Factionalism Part 2 are forthcoming, I am not yet ready to articulate them. In my discussions with people on this subject, I find people are mostly unable to grasp the 'Big Picture'. All to often they are caught on petty things like 'who will maintain the roads' etc.. So I have found myself thinking about the smaller issues, or to be more precise how I would run a Faction in that situation. Of course this would only be one way to deal with issues. Factionalism allows multiple solutions to social problems to co-exist. There is more than one way to skin a cat....