Anarchism: Statism in Miniature

Anarchist libertarians like to imagine themselves as champions of individual liberty, boldly opposing the coercive power of the state. But in reality, rather than rejecting the concept of state authority, they merely want to shrink it down to small community, a microstate, where an authority still exists, just smaller, and in their minds, more rational.

But the anarchists do not impose constraints on this authority. It is allowed to operate entirely at the whim of the majority opinion in the community. The anarchists reject the large state for inefficiency and its bloated size. Yet, their solution is not freedom but a better-managed cage. They accept the premise of a collective rule, so long as it comes with opt-in contracts.

The microstate, therefore, has no protection against the familiar devices of statism: immigration restrictions, regulations, forced educational curriculum and taxes. Its so-called voluntarism conceals the reality that, just like traditional states, the individual is subject to a collective authority which has the power to enforce decisions.

Then what of anarchist claim that individuals will vote with their feet and leave an oppressive community? Likely, there will be nowhere to go. All microstates will be statist in one respect or another. And should a free one emerge, it won't remain so for long. The neighbours will gang up on it and conquer it, because freedom is a threat to statism.

But won't the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) prevent a microstate from enacting statism in the first place? Won't it prevent one microstate from attacking another? No, it won’t. The anarchists do not define what constitutes aggression. Is predatory pricing a form of aggression? Is drawing caricatures of Mohammed aggression? Is surrounding someone’s house with your own private land and refusing him passage, a form of aggression? Is waving a gun aggression? Without a full philosophical framework to define the meaning of freedom, nothing stops a group from inventing a pretext to oppress the individual in the name of the collective.

Take the case of the Prospera project. Its governing authority had no moral qualms instituting an apartheid-like policy: anyone without a business registered in the Prospera zone is prohibited from entering and walking its streets. (Registering a company in Prospera is $1000 per year, which the Hondurans can neither afford nor have a need for.) What justification is offered? That individuals without a registered company in Prospera have no business being in the region. But by what right can the authority decide who can be on public streets? The answer: it’s all for the benefit of the collective. Welcome collectivism and statism — and so much for the Non-Aggression Principle.

Returning to the idea of “voting with one’s feet,” it’s entirely possible that an individual will not be allowed to leave the community or will be forced to abandon all of his private property if he tries. Today, people cannot leave North Korea, and they couldn’t leave the USSR. In Iran, families have been required to leave behind a large collateral deposit, forfeited if they fail to return. What prevents a microstate from imposing the same restrictions on emigration?

The anarchists might respond that “the NAP will prevent it.” But who will enforce the NAP? The ruling authority won’t fight against itself. It can always whitewash its coercion by claiming that leaving the community without “paying it off” constitutes aggression against the community which invested into the individual. The USSR, which unapologetically called its border an “iron curtain,” made the argument that individuals who wanted to leave owed the state compensation for receiving free education and other free public services.

In the end, anarchists offer no true escape from statism—only a replica at a smaller scale. Is there a better way? Yes. First, a political society must be a state of sufficient size—microstates cannot effectively defend themselves against outside aggression. Second, it cannot have just any political system chosen by the collective; it must be laissez-faire capitalism—the only system that truly protects individual rights. This requires a constitution and a system of checks and balances to limit government authority. Finally, it requires a philosophy (Objectivism) to identify what is a right and what is not.