Democracy, Anarchy, Equality & Liberty

Recently I read a symposium from the C4SS (Center for a Stateless Society) entitled "Anarchy & Democracy". This work was a collection of articles by both pro and anti democracy anarchists. I think both made some good points and some bad ones. First democracy is a tool not a political system in and of itself, this is something neither side seemed to understand, second the phrase rule of all by all was said quite a few times, but never really explained, and often used interchangeably with majority rule.

First I think it is crucial to explain democracy as I understand it. Democracy is voting and electoralism. Translated as “rule of the people”. But what people? Many may say authoritarian regimes like North Korea are not democratic, but this is not entirely accurate. North Korea is democratic, it is just very restrictive on who can vote. Rule by the people that are high ranking party officials, if you will. Every country has some restrictions on who can vote, some are just more or less strict in these voting requirements. The difference between modern liberal democracies and monarchies of old is not the presence of democracy but rather how liberal this democracy is. Now I don’t mean liberal in the political sense exclusively, I mean it in the broader sense of generous amount or alot. Monarchies of old for example had courts of keys to power who voted on how royal lineages would go, rule by the people of the court, if you will. Essentially just more conservative in its democracy (conservative in its broad sense). Liberal democracies just spread this out more, being more generous with voting rights, a lot more democracy essentially being more liberal with it, rule by the common people, if you will. Hence the term liberal democracy. Now democracy as a tool will almost certainly be used in a completely voluntary society, denying this would seem foolish, however asserting that it is the basis of voluntary organization would seem to me to be equally foolish. One of the problems that I have with anarcho-communists is that at best they seem arrogant and at worst not actual anarchists. What I mean is that at best they think that they can accurately predict how every single person will organize in a voluntary society, which is incredibly arrogant. And at worst they seek to enforce their preferred organizational method, which is not anarchist. It seems to me that similar things are going on with both the pro and anti democratic anarchists. The pro side seems to be arrogant enough to think democracy is the way all organizations will work in a voluntary society. And the anti democratic anarchists are arrogant enough to think none will. When it seems obvious to me that some will and others won’t. Anarchism translates to “rule without rulers”. Rules would arise through voluntary relationships, instead of a class of rulers (or state). Anarchism is best understood as an aggregate of relationships rather than a singular model of society. This is why it is so hard to answer the questions of what an anarchist society will look like, or how it will function. All we can do is answer with broad predictions and generalities. It would be like if you asked me “if you ever get married, what will be in your prenup?” I have no idea, I could make some predictions of general things I would like it to say, but I couldn't give you a word for word description until I get married and have it written up.  

Sendond, I will discuss the rule of all by all. Like I said this phrase was brought up a fair amount, but not really explained and often used interchangeably with majority rule. Now I don’t see it this way. Majority rule has obvious issues of two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. However, the rule of all by all implies equality and everybody checking each other. Now before I elaborate I should define the word ruler, a ruler is one with the exclusive authority to enact and enforce rules. So with this definition it is obvious that if everyone is a ruler, no one is, as no one has the exclusive authority to enact and enforce rules. Everyone has equal authority. I have just as much right to rule over you as you do to rule over me. Now that is not to say none, I can enact a rule like you cannot steal from me, and if you attempt to break that rule I can fight to enforce it, but of course you can enact that same rule over me and if I attempt to break it you can fight to enforce it. Another example, if you steal twenty dollars from me, I can steal it back from you. Like the non aggression principle would state “do not coerce one who has not coerced”. If I put a gun to someone’s head and say “gimme all your money” then you come along and put a gun to my head and say “drop that fucking gun you ass hole” Then you are justified in coercing me to stop coercing that other dude. And this applies for everybody. In our current statist society of course it doesn’t. If you steal 20 dollars from me and I steal it back, I’m a vigilante, I have to call the cops and they have to make you give it back. If I put a gun to someone's head and say “gimme all your money” then you come and put a gun to my head and say “drop that fucking gun you ass hole” then you are a vigilante. Again the cops must be called and they are the only ones that have the right to coerce whether justified or not. Everytime there is a police shooting, there is a debate over whether it was justified or not. And I always want to ask, what if I did it? To use a real life example, let’s talk about Kyle Rittenhouse. Now I think the evidence is clear, that these shootings were self defense. But he still spent a night in jail, and went to trial. If he had been a cop however, he would have been suspended with pay pending an investigation. The investigation would have cleared him and he would have been back to work, no time in jail nor trial. So is this liberty? No, why not? It lacks equality. See liberty requires equality to be meaningful at all. Otherwise we may as well say North Korea is libertarian, as Kim Jong Un can do whatever the fuck he wants, he has all the liberty and everyone else has none. You have probably heard the saying “my right to swing my fist in the air ends at your face” but who’s right to swing their fist in the air ends at whose face? In North Korea your right to swing your fist in the air ends at Kim Jong Un’s face, but Kim Jong Un's right to swing his fist in the air goes well beyond your face. In my eighth grade history class I took a test, now one of the questions on this test was "what is freedom?” Now my teacher made it clear to not answer with being able to do whatever you want, as that is not what freedom is. This seem’d obvious enough to me, but I still had trouble thinking of a better definition, until I did. I answered this question with “freedom is being able to do whatever you want as long as you don’t hinder anyone else's freedom”. I got the highest grade in the class, and that is the definition I have stuck with to this day. So is North Korea libertarian? No, why? Because Kim Jong Un can do whatever he wants, including hindering everyone else's liberty. In a word, it lacks equality.

Finally, I will discuss the problem with power and why it corrupts. First I must define voluntarism. Voluntarism is an equal consideration of interests. Even the most benevolent of people however will occasionally subordinate another's interests to their own, no one is perfectly considerate of others interests, we all act selfishly every once in a while, oftentimes without even realizing that we are doing so. The issue is that if I do that to a friend (as I have) they can call me out (as they have) and true negotiation can occur (as it has). However if I were a boss, politician or cop, then I could not be called out and would become accustomed to subordinating another’s interests to my own, and might not even realize I’m doing so, and how benevolent I individually may or may not be would not matter. So again we can see why equality is so crucial, so that we can all call each other out when we inevitably act selfishly, we can all check each other, rule of all by all, that is what the phrase implies to me and that is exactly how I understand voluntarism and anarchy.

Now I could talk more about democracy, how it is misunderstood and overrated, I could explain more criticisms from figures like Pierre Joseph Proudhon, and no doubt will in the future. But for now, in closing I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for the C4SS and all the contributors in this symposium. Nothing I said should be taken as an insult or recommendation to not read the collaboration, I think you should if you are interested, give it your own thoughts and if so inclined write your own criticisms as I have here. Thank you for reading and I wish you well.